JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. The management/writ petitioner has challenged the Award dated 25.10.2016, passed in Reference Case No. 6/2015, whereby the learned Labour Court, Guwahati has ordered the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 with full back wages.

3. The petitioner's case in brief is that due to termination of the service of the respondent No. 3 by the writ petitioner, a dispute arose between the respondent No. 3 and the writ petitioner. The Government referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Guwahati, by way of a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 2 (two) issues:-

(1) Whether the management is justified to terminate the respondent No. 3 from his service.

(2) If not, then he is entitled to re-installation in the same post with back wages and back benefit.

4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the issues set out by the Government for reference of the dispute between the parties, approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 4655/2015, stating that no reference had been made with regard to the core issue relevant for adjudication of the dispute, i.e. whether the respondent No. 3 was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. WP (C) No. 4655/2015 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 12.08.2015, by holding that the issue "whether the respondent No. 3 was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947" was implicit in Issue No. 1 itself.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that subsequent to the Order dated 12.08.2015 passed in WP (C) No. 4655/2015, the Labour Court decided the Reference Case No. 6/2015, after adducing evidence of the parties and directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 with full back wages from the date of his dismissal.

7. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court did not address the issue with regard to whether the respondent No. 3 was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. He also submits, in the alternative, that if the learned Labour Court had come to a finding that the respondent No. 3 was a workman, the records would show that there was no basis for the learned Labour Court to have come to such a finding.

9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submits that the work of the respondent No. 3 was to promote the sales of the distributors and super stockist and that of the company, as a whole. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 was a Supervisor. He thus submits that as the work of the respondent No. 3 involved Supervisory work and as he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, the respondent No. 3 could not be said to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in T.P. Srivastava vs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (1992) 1 SCC 281, wherein it held that persons, who are employed for Sales Promotion, would normally not come within the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Management of M/s Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. vs. State of Assam in WP (C) No. 5946/2006, which was disposed of vide Judgment dated 28.08.2014. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anglo-French Drug Company (Eastern) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad and Others, (2004) 2 LLN 913, para 47.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 is a workman, who comes within Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in view of the amend