Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

An Award passed by the learned judge of the 2nd Labour Court Kolkata allowing the application under Section 10(1B)(D) of the Industrial Disputes Act is under challenge in this writ petition.

By the said Award the court below had declared that the petitioner was entitled to get reinstatement in service with only 50 per cent. back wages accrued in his favour from July 4, 2005 till his actual restatement. The order of termination has been set aside and the management of the writ petitioner company herein was directed to reinstate the applicant within a period of 60 days from the passing of the Award. The short facts leading to passing of the Award is that the petitioner is a pharmaceutical company where the respondent no. 3 was appointed as a Medical Service Representative on November 8, 1993. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of District Manager. The agreements that were reached between the petitioner company as well as the respondent no. 3 inter alia provided that any dispute in relation to the termination of service of the petitioner was to be adjudicated upon in a forum within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. In other words, the respondent no. 3 had agreed to the ouster of territorial jurisdiction of other courts.

The petitioner has given a list of duties that the respondent no. 3 had to discharge as a District Manager and the tasks that he had to attend to from which the petitioner company alleged that the respondent no. 3 was holding an administrative and managerial post.

By a letter dated May 18, 2005 the respondent no. 3 was re-designated and he was instructed to operate from Guwahati as his headquarter. Since in spite of repeated warnings he did not join his new place of posting he was given a final opportunity by a letter dated June 20, 2005. Even thereafter he did not move. Therefore, his service was terminated by a letter dated July 4, 2005 with immediate effect as per the terms and conditions of employment. The respondent no. 3 thereafter filed an application under Section 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd Labour Court praying for full back wages and other benefits. The writ petitioner company contested the case by filing a written statement. Evidence was adduced by both the sides and by the Award impugned the learned judge of the court below had directed the reinstatement of the respondent no. 3. As mentioned earlier this has been the subject-matter of challenge before this court. The complexities of the problems involved in this writ petition can be appreciated from the issues raised by the labour court. Basically they related to whether the applicant before the labour court was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The court below after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, as well as the relevant provisions of law and the judgements referred to it, had answered both the issues in the affirmative. It further came to a conclusion that the management of the company had terminated the service of the respondent no. 3 herein without any enquiry or charge-sheet or show-cause notice and passed the Award accordingly. Mr. Soumya Majumder, the learned advocate for the petitioner company has chiefly assailed the finding of the court below on those two issues. According to Mr. Majumder the concerned employee was neither a workman nor was the Government of West Bengal the appropriate government by reason of the forum exclusion clause in the appointment letter. The finding of the court below that the respondent no. 3 was a workman, the petitioner submitted, was on an improper reading of the documents marked as exhibits. He had totally failed to prove that he was a workman. The company has referred to the duties he had to discharge. They have given a list of duties that the petitioner had to perform. These included guiding medical se