Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 483
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
G.K. Jha
Versus
The Presiding Officers & Others
W.P.(C) No. 5397 of 1998
Decided on : 03-05-2013.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: In Person & Others
For the Respondents:Arvind Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Sales Promotion Employees - Industrial Dispute - Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(d), Section 2(s), Section 6(2) - The court discussed the definition of 'Sales Promotion Employee' under Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Act and the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the petitioner's case. The court analyzed the petitioner's role as a District Manager and the evidence presented to conclude that the petitioner was serving in a managerial and administrative capacity, not as a workman. The court relied on precedents and the petitioner's conduct during cross-examination to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an industrial award regarding the termination of his services as a District Manager. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not a workman under the Sales Promotion Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the dispute was not an industrial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was serving in a managerial capacity as a District Manager, based on the evidence presented and the petitioner's conduct during cross-examination. The court concluded that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under the Acts.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner qualified as a workman under the Sales Promotion Act and the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also considered the petitioner's role as a District Manager and the nature of his duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'Sales Promotion Employee' under Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Act and the petitioner's role as a District Manager. The court relied on precedents and the petitioner's conduct during cross-examination to determine the nature of the petitioner's employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the industrial award and concluding that the petitioner was not a workman under the Sales Promotion Act and the Industrial Disputes Act.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the industrial award dated 04.02.1998, passed by the Labour Court- I: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi in I.D. No. 67/1991. The Labour Court vide the said award held that the Petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978 (for short, the Sales Promotion Act) r/w Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), and hence the dispute not an industrial dispute. Consequently, the dispute raised by the petitioner contained in the reference made to the Labour Court vide reference dated 14.01.1991 with regard to the termination of the petitioners services by the respondent management, has not been decided on merits on account of lack of jurisdiction.
2. The background facts may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Sales Representative with the Respondent no. 3 on 04.06.1986. After serving for the probationary period, the petitioner got confirmed on 28.11.1986. The petitioner was transferred from Purnea to Muzzafarpur and was asked to be a team leader and co-ordinate between his team members. On 13.02.1987, the petitioner was promoted to the post of District Manager and was put on probation of 6 months. By letter dated 31.08.1987, the probation period of the petitioner was extended by 3 months i.e. upto 01.12.1987 after assessment of the petitioners performance. Vide telegram dated 01.12.1987, the respondent management again expressed its inability to confirm the petitioner in the post of District Manager. The petitioner was transferred from Muzzafarpur to Rajamundhry with effect from 01.06.1988. His area of operation was also reduced to Muzaffarpur area only. On account of his unsatisfactory performance, the management terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.10.1988.
3. In August 1989, the petitioner filed a dispute before the Patna Labour Court. The said claim was apparently dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Eventually, the reference, as aforesaid, came to be made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court which was registered as I.D. No. 67/91. The petitioner filed his statement of claim. The petitioner claimed that his services were terminated illegally and on false allegations. The respondent management, inter alia, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the claim on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was employed as a District Manager and was discharging managerial and/or sales functions. Other defences were also raised regarding territorial jurisdiction and estoppel. The respondent also claimed that the termination was made in terms of the stipulations contained in the appointment letter. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court, on 03.08.1994, framed the following issues-
I. Whether the claimant is a workman in the employment of the Management as defined in law? O.P.W.
II. Whether the workman is estopped from raising industrial dispute as similar industrial dispute is filed at Patna? O.P.M.
III. Whether this court has no jurisdiction as the workman was posted at Rajahmundry A.P.? O.P.M.
IV. Asper the terms of reference? O.P.W.
V. Whether the workman is gainfully employed?
4. The parties led their respective evidence. The Labour Court vide award dated 04.02.1998 decided issue no. 1 against the claimant, and held him as not being a workman. Consequently, it was held that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The other issues were, therefore, not decided, as the dispute ceased to be an industrial dispute by the virtue of the finding of Labour Court on issue no. 1.
5. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings in the statement of claim, held that the petitioner was drawing more than Rs.1,600/- per month as wages and he was working as a Di
