Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2). The appellant challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge rejecting his petition filed against the order passed by Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur dated 14.3.2000 on an application moved by respondent Harish Gogna, a Medical Representative of the petitioner company, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent has moved an application under Section 33-C(2) before the Labour Court on 31.12.1999 for quantification and recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,553.30 alleged to be due from the petitioner appellant as remuneration for period from July 1997 to August, 1998. The respondent alleged the petitioner to be his employer. The petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the Labour Court of the application moved by the respondent workman and, therefore, the court directed the proceedings to continue exparte on 6.8.1999. Prior to proceeding exparte the Labour Court has received a letter dated 7.6.1999 on 10.6.1999 from the petitioner appellant in which it was alleged that the respondent is not its workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as a medical representative is not a workman within the definition of `workman and in that light he has also placed reliance on a decision of H.R. Adyanthaya etc. vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. (1), for taking the stand that the medical representatives are not workmen within the meaning of the Act of 1947. It was also stated in the said letter that the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) is a recovery court of non- disputed claims and has no jurisdiction even for workmen whose matters are under dispute. It was also stated in that letter that substantively the applicant deserted his appointment when he was transferred to another territory as per the conditions of his employment contract and asked for dismissal of the application.

(3). The Labour Court by taking into consideration and after referring the aforesaid reply allowed the application of the respondent and quantified the amount payable by the appellant to the respondent workman as Rs. 27,900/- and directed the same to be paid to the workmen by 14.3.2000 failing which 10% interest was awarded. This order was challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition No. 3486/2000 before this Court raising the same issues and relying on the decision of Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthayas case (supra) for contending that the medical representative is not a workman. Learned Single Judge on considering the aforesaid decision as well as a Bench decision on this Court rendered in Rajasthan Medical & Sales Representatives Union & Anr. vs. M/s Industrial Research Institute Private Ltd. (2), and another Bench decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in Ripu Daman Bhanot vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana & Ors. (3), rejected the contention raised by the appellant and dismissed the petition.

(4). It is contended by Mr. Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance that it has been held in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision as well as the later decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (4), that a medical representative is not a workman.

(5). Having given our careful consideration we are unable to sustain the said contention.

(6). It is true that in the aforesaid two cases as a matter of fact Honble Supreme Court has held the concerned claimants in the respective cases who were medical representatives as not the workman. However, the difference that has been brought about as a matter of law on account of amendments made in Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976 from time to time and the amendment made in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by amending Act of 1982 under which the amendment in Sections 2(s) and 2(rr) which has come into force w.e.f. 21.8.1984 the medical representatives without the limit of the salary which they dr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document