M. Venugopal, J.

Aggrieved against the order dated 11. 2000 made in W.P.No. 21250 of 1993 the appellant/ management has filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The second respondent / writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No. 21250 of 1993 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for the relief of quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore dated 2. 1993 in and by which the second respondent/ writ petitioner/ employee was held to be not a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, 1947, since the employee worked only as sales representative and that he does not have the right to raise an industrial dispute and that the appellant / management was directed to pay 10 months salary to the second respondent/ writ petitioner / employee as ex-gratia, in the circumstance, that the writ petitioner / second respondent in appeal has worked only for one year from 10. 1986 to 30.9.1987.

3. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the second respondent / petitioner / employee comes within the ambit of definition of workman as per Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and that the second respondent / petitioner / employee was directed to be reinstated in the same post with immediate effect with continuity of service and together with backwages and all other attendant benefits and that the said backwages and other monetary benefits should be calculated from 10. 1987 together with interest at 12% p.a and the same should be paid in cash or D.D. Within 60 days from the date of the order. Further, it was also held that in case the post already held by the employee was not readily available, the management was directed to create a supernumerary post protecting the interest of the employee in all respects.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge should have noticed that it is a settled law that a person employed as a Sales Representative, a Medical Representative, a Salesman, a Sales Engineering Representative are not held to be a Workman under the I.D. Act, that Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act is not applicable to them, that the second respondent/ writ petitioner/ employee was appointed as a sales representative and that he was doing the work of canvassing and also demonstrating the pesticides manufactured and marketed by the Company and that he had not done any clerical work in the appellant company.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that a Medical Representative will come within the meaning of term workman as defined in the Act in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court between S.K.VERMA VS. MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER (AIR 1984 S.C. 1462 (DB) and in view of the addition of the word operational in the definition and in view of the aforesaid decisions and also by means of amending Act 46/82, the learned single Judge opined that the second respondent / employee was a workman under the Act.

6. In support of his contention that the second respondent/ employee is not a workman as per section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 I LLJ 303 ( H.R.ADYANTHAYA etc., etc., VS. SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD., etc. etc.,) wherein it is held that the word "skilled" used in the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act of 1982 would not include the kind of work done by the sales promotion employees and for the very same reason, the word "operational" would also not include the said work.

7. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent / writ petitioner, the second respondent employee is a sales promotion employee and that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SPIC PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION VS. AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF A.P.SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1988 AND ANOTHER (2007 (2) SCC 616), the non-employm