The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the duties performed by an employee must align with the categories of work defined in the Industrial Disputes Act to qualify as a 'workman'. The entire 'labour force' excluding the 'managerial force' does not necessarily come within the ambit of the definition of 'workman'.

The petitioner is a manufacturer and distributor of drugs, pharmaceuticals, food products and laboratory chemicals. Medical representatives are employed by the petitioner for the purpose of canvassing sale of products. One T.L. Kuriakose was a medical representative of the petitioner-company. Being a medical representative he was required to call on doctors, hospitals, stockists, chemists and druggist and to take efforts to canvass, promote and push sales of the company's products. In exercise of the powers and discretion vested in the petitioner-company under the terms of appointment, the petitioner used to transfer the medical representatives from one centre to another. In February, 1980 while Kuriakose was working as medical representative at Calicut was transferred to Bijapur in the State of Karnataka. Kuriakose wanted to remain in the home State. So he applied to review the transfer order; but his application was rejected and he was informed that in the event of not joining duty at Bijapur, it would be treated as* disobedience of lawful orders of the petitioner-company. Kuriakose did not join duty at Bijapur and consequently a charge sheet was issued to Kuriakose and he was charged with misconduct and wilful disobedience of the lawful order of the petitioner. An enquiry ensued which culminated in the dismissal of Kuriakose from service. A reference was made to the 2nd respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut by Government of Kerala, under Industrial Disputes Act. Preliminary objections were raised before the Industrial Tribunal. Petitioner contended that Kuriakose was not a workman as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the 2nd respondent held that Kuriakose was a workman as defined under the I.D. Act. This preliminary finding (Ext. P10) is challenged in these proceedings.

2. The term 'workman' has been defined in S.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It underwent amendments in 1956 and 1982 and as per the 1982 amendment the definition of 'workman' is as follows:

"(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 persons 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 one thousand six hundred 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."

In the 1982 amendment not much change was introduced; but the word 'operational' was included in the first part of the definition. So also in the case of persons employed in a supervisory capacity the ceiling of wages was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs.1600/- per mensem under S.2(s)(iv) of the Act.

3. The question as to whether a medical representative, a sales representative or employees of similar nature are workmen coming under the definition of S.2(s) of the I.D. Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in various decisions. The fact that Kuriakose was only a medical representative is not disputed. In the original petition it is alleged that the duties of Kuriakose was to call on doctors, hospitals, stockists, chemists and druggists and to explain to them the efficacy of the pe