The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the proper procedure, particularly the retrenchment procedure as per Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in cases of termination of a workman's services.

JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J. - Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. The writ appellant before this Court has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2019 passed in WP(C) 1037/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of the present writ appellant, which in turn was filed as a challenge to the award of the Labour Court dated 25.10.2016.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 is a workman and was in employment of Godrej Consumer Products Limited. At the relevant time, he was working as a "Senior Field Officer". His services were terminated by order dated 1st of September, 2014. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The terms of reference made by the Government were as follows:-

"(i) Whether the management is justified to terminate Mr. Chanchal Mukhopadhyay from his service?

(ii) If not, then is he entitled to re-installation in the same post with back wages & back benefit?

5. The clear stand in the written statement taken by the workman was that he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stands amended in the State of Assam vide the Industrial Disputes (Assam Amendment) Act, 2007. Since this definition, is extremely important for our adjudication, we may state that the workman has been defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 2(s) is as follows:-

"2.(s) 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."

6. Since the subject matter[1] which would be labour and industry, falls under the concurrent list, there have been State Amendments in the Act, from time to time, by different States. In the State of Assam, an Amendment was brought in the year 2007, known as Industrial Disputes (Assam Amendment) Act, 2007 which received the assent of the President on 30th October, 2007 under Clause (2) to Article 254 of the Constitution of India[2] . The amendment widens the definition of workman so far as it is in applicable to the State of Assam.

7. By the said amendment, the following words i.e. "or any work for the promotion of sales" was inserted between words "or supervisory work" and "for hire or reward". The effect of the amendment would be that a person who is employed in an establishment who is doing any work for promotion of sales in Assam, is also a "workman." Mr. Haloi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 (workman) would submit that by the definition of "workman", respondent No.3 is a workman.

8. Mr. Dutta would, however, submit that the definition of a "sales promotion employees" has to be seen also in terms of the Sales Promot