IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act includes sales promotion employees not engaged in managerial or supervisory roles, but emphasizes the necessity of following procedural requirements for filing disputes under Section 2-A.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Lastly heard on 12.03.2004

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In spite of service of notice, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent union.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Ref. Case No. 10/2013 (Annexure-3) whereby the letter dated 23.03.2013 issued by the petitioner company discharging Mr. Santan Kumar, the concerned workman has been set aside and the writ petitioner company has been directed to reinstate Mr. Santan Kumar with 50% of total back wages.

4. As per the impugned award, the case was instituted by the respondent union (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) by filing a petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) on behalf of a sale promotion employee-Medical Sales Representative, Ranchi, namely, Santan Kumar, with a prayer to set aside the letter dated 23.03.2013 whereby, said Santan Kumar, was discharged from service of the petitioner company by way of punishment. A prayer was also made to reinstate him with full back wages and other benefits.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Labour Court for consideration:

(i) Whether instant case is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled or authorized to file instant case on behalf of employee Mr. Santan Kumar?

(iii) Whether employee Mr. Santan Kumar is workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act.

(iv) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try and proceed with the instant case?

(v) Whether termination order of workman Mr. Santan Kumar is bad in law and whether termination order has been passed keeping in mind settled principle of natural justice?

(vi) Whether concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages?

(vii) Whether domestic enquiry conducted against workman was in accordance with settled law and in compliance with principle of natural justice?”

(viii) Whether workman is entitled for any other relief?

Arguments of the petitioner company

6. Arguments of the petitioner was recorded in order dated 12.03.2024. It has been submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision on issue nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi). The core issue is whether Santan Kumar who was working as a Medical Sales Representative is covered under the definition of workman, as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, and for this the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act has been placed and reference has been made to clause 4 thereof to submit that Santan Kumar was having a salary of more than Rs.10,000 and therefore, he was not covered within the definition of ‘workman’. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 1430 of 2009 (Nalin Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar and others), decided on 19.01.2011 [Annexure – 4] and a judgment passed by this Court reported in 2004 (3) JCR 231 (Jhr) (M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand) [annexure-5]. It has been submitted that the impugned judgment is ex-facie perverse as the union had no authority to represent the workman, as the said union was not a recognized union by the petitioner. The workman has not performed his duties as per the instructions issued to him from time to time and without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, grant of 50% back wages is not justified and the order of discharge has been wrongly set aside. As per the appointment letter, the jurisdiction in connection with the dispute could have been raised only in Mumbai, and therefore, the dispute raised in Jharkhand could not be entertained by the learned Labour Court, Ranchi.

Case of the Respondent Union before the learned Labour Court.

7. The case of the union was that it was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and was affiliated to Fed