HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 19th of September, 2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 17351 of 2012, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant against an Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 24th April, 2012 remained unsuccessful.

2. The appellant was appointed as a Trainee Medical Representative. A Show Cause Notice cum Enquiry Notice (Charge Sheet) was issued to him on 13th of December, 2002. Later, he was dismissed on 30th of March, 2003. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur but on an objection by the management, the reference was found to be not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Nalin Sinha vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2012 (1) PLJR 214. The writ application against the said order remained unsuccessful.

3. Earlier the matter came up before the Letters Patent Bench on 9th of November, 2012 when the appeal was dismissed. However, the said order in the Letters Patent Appeal was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter remitted back to this Court. It is thereafter, the matter has been placed before us.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the Division Bench judgment of Punjab-Haryana High Court reported as Ripu Daman Bhanot vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour, (1997) I LLJ 557, to contend that Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “SPE Act”) has not been omitted as Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1982 (Act No. 42 of 1982) has not been enforced omitting the said sub-section, whereas some other provisions of the Amending Act has been notified on August 21, 1984. Thus, the Division Bench has held that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act became applicable to the Medical Representatives depending upon their wages up to May 6, 1987 and without the limitation on their wages thereafter in view of the capacity in which they were employed or engaged. The Division Bench has considered the Supreme Court judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 2608.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the management refers to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nalin Sinha’s case (Supra), wherein it has been held that the Medical Representatives are not workmen governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the question whether the appellant, a Medical Representative, is governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terms of Section 6(2) of the SPE Act or not depends upon the questions of fact i.e. as to whether such employee has been employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per mensem or whether he is employed or engaged in a managerial or administrative capacity. Unless the exceptions as mentioned above are satisfied, the Sales Promotion Employee would be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of Section 6(2) of the SPE Act.

7. At this stage, it will be advantageous to reproduce certain relevant provisions of the SPE Act. Section 2(d) of the SPE Act, as amended vide Central Act No. 48 of 1986 with effect from 6th of May 1987, reads as under:-

“2(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.

(ii) Who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.

6(1) The provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or