(Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kuman)

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14035 of 2007*, questioning the award passed by the Labour Court, Patna in Reference Case No. 5 of 2006.

2. It has been contended that the dispute has been referred by the Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate on the issue of transfer of the appellant as a medical representative from Patna to Hissar in the State of Haryana. The Lab.our Court having gone into the merits of the case passed the award holding that the action of the appellant-respondent is arbitrary in nature and has set aside the transfer order. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-appellant has preferred this writ petition and the learned Single Judge having held that the appellant herein fall under the definition of 'Workman' has set aside the award. Accordingly, questioning the same the respondent has preferred the appeal at the first instance itself. The question that would arise for consideration is whether the appellant herein falls under the definition of 'Workman', we also had an occasion to go through the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of H.R Adyanthaya etc. etc. vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc., reported in AIR 1994 SC 2608, we have an occasion to deal with the amendment in Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Services) Act, 1976 extending the benefit of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Services) Act, 1976 by Section 6(2) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 2(d) and Section 6(2) of the Act are as follows:-

'2. Definitions.-In this, Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(d) "Sales promotion, employees" means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both, but does not include any such person, (i) who, being employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity. draws wages exceeding sixteen hundred rupees per mensem; or (ii) who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, the wages per mensem of a person shall be deemed to be the amount equal to thirty times his total wages (whether or not including, or comprising only of, commission) in respect of the continuous period of his service falling within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, divided by the number of days comprising that period of service.

6. Application of certain Acts to sales promotion employees.--(2) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales; promotion employee shall be deemed to include a sales promotion employee who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute."

3. It has to be seen in the particular facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant is medical representative and the undisputed fact remains that his wages exceeds As. 1,6001- per month and he is not a 'Workman' who is an employee of M/s Merk Limited doing the work relating to promotion of business. This Court having gone into the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya etc. etc. vs Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the 'medical representative' will not fall under the definition of 'Workman' while dealing with the amendment. Following the same we are of the opinion that the appel