Sales Promotion Employees, as defined under the SPE Act, are required to seek remedy under the ID Act, and their complaints cannot be maintained under the BSE Act.

Sachchidanand Jha, J.

1. These two writ petitions arising out of a common order of the Labour Court and involving the same disputed have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in both the case filed complaints under Sec. 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (BSE Act, for short) challenging separate but identical orders of termination of services. The Labour Court acting as the Authority under the Act has dismissed the complaints as not maintainable holding that in view of the provisions of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Services) Act, 1976 (SPE Act, for short), the petitioners may seek their remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act, for short). The facts of the case, briefly stated and so far as relevant, are as follows:

3. Tata Pharma, a division of the Lakme Limited having its registered office at Bombay, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals all over the Country. Gautam Banerjee, the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 5001 of 1995, joined the Tata Pharma as a Medical Representative on the salary of Rs. 675 per month on 16.8.83. He was promoted as Junior Field Officer and, later, Senior Field Officer. The post of Senior Field Officer was re-designated as Area Field Manager. From the post of Area Field Manager he was promoted to the post of Regional Sales Manager, on remuneration of Rs. 2,700 on 1.1.91. On 24.12.92, he was asked to resign from the service. The petitioner, instead, made representation. His representation was rejected on 31.12.92 and on 4.1.93, his services were terminated. At the relevant time, he was getting salary of Rs. 3,000.00 per month. According to the petitioner during the entire period of his service, his performance had been excellent and it was in recognition of his satisfactory service that he was granted promotions. He filed complaint challenging the order of termination and seeking reinstatement under Section 26(2) of the BSE Act which was registered as BSE Case No. 4/93 before the Labour Court, Patna. The Respondent-Management filed show cause challenging, inter alia, the maintainability of the case. By the impugned order dated 22.5.95 the complaint was dismissed.

4. More or less similar are the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 5013 of 1995. The petitioner of that case, namely, Pankaj Saran joined the Tata Pharma as a trainee Medical Representative on a monthly stipend of Rs. 800.00 on 15.10.86. He was confirmed on the post with effect from 1.9.87. In April 1990, he was promoted as Area Field Manager which post he held until termination of his services on 31.12.92. He filed the complaint, which was registered as BSE case No. 5/93, seeking similar relief. On similar ground that the complaint was held not maintainable by common order dated 22.5.95, his complaint was dismissed.

5. As will appear from the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order, the respondents in their show cause did not controvert the factual aspects of the case with regard to the appointment/promotion and salary of the petitioners. They have also to a large extent, admitted the nature of duties performed by the petitioners as claimed by them in their complaints. According to the respondents, however, even as per the petitioners case the provisions of the BSE Act were not applicable as the petitioners were not employees with the meaning of Sec. 2(4) of that Act; rather, as they were performing duties of Supervisor/Managerial nature, they fall within the definition of Employer under Sec. 2(5) of that Act and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable under the Act. The respondents stated that the services of the petitioners were totally unsatisfactory and no longer were required in the interest of the company. However, in order to avoid any stigma to them they were initially asked to resign from the service; it was only when they declined to do so, their services were terminated.

6. A significant feature of the case is that altho