Sales Promotion Employees may qualify as Workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if specified by the Sales Promotion Employees Act; wrongful termination without due process is illegal.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Vellore, dated 11.03.2004 made in I.D.No.150 of 2000. By the said award, the claim petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by holding that he is not a Workman, within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short referred to as 'the Act').

A.Case of the Workman:

2. The Workman's case is that he worked under the Management as a Sales Representative for 12 years. In the year 1999, he was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.6,955/-. On 15.07.1999, he was issued a notice of termination and one month's wages through a demand draft. The Workman appealed to the Management on 30.07.1999, for which there was no response. Therefore, he raised a dispute. Conciliation failed. Thereafter, he filed the present Claim Petition under Section 2(A) (2) of the Act, which was taken on file as I.D.No.150 of 2000.

B.Case of the Management:

3. The case of the Management is that the petitioner joined the service on 07.07.1986 as a Trainee Medical Representative and thereafter, with effect from 01.08.1987, he was confirmed as Junior Sales Representative. However, the petitioner's service was not up to the satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner claiming as an office bearer of the respondent - Management went to the residence of one S.Venkatesan, who was working for another Company – M/s FDC Limited, along with the other members of Tamil Nadu Medical Representatives Association, gheraoed, threatened and abused him with filthy language, for which a police complaint was also lodged by the said individual. The petitioner being a Medical Representative is also representing the Management. Therefore, considering the above charge and considering the reputation of the Management, the petitioner's services were terminated on 15.07.1999. Even after termination, the petitioner was called by the Management that they would consider employing him as a fresh candidate if he gave an undertaking that he would not indulge in acts that would lower the dignity of the profession and the reputation of the Management. The petitioner did not come forward, to give such an undertaking.

3.1. It is the specific case of the Management that the petition filed was not maintainable as the petitioner will not come within the purview of the Act. He is a Medical Representative and was paid a salary of Rs.6955/- per month. He will not come within the purview of the definition of the Workman under Section 2 (s) of the Act. The petitioner cannot approach the Labour Court as per the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in H.R.Adyanthaya etc., Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. Etc.,. , (1995) 1 LLJ 303.

C.Findings of the Labour Court:

4. With the above pleadings, the Labour Court took up the enquiry. There was no oral evidence on behalf of both sides. On behalf of the Workman Exhibits.W.1 to W.3 were marked. On behalf of the Management, Exhibits.M.1 to M.9 were marked.

4.1. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the case and by adverting to certain paragraphs of the Supreme Court of India in H.R.Adyanthaya's case (cited supra) and certain other Judgments came to the conclusion that the Medical Representatives being the sales promotion employees, are not a Workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act and as such, rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition was filed by the Workman.

D.The Submissions:

5. Heard, Mr.K.Elango, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel.

5.1. In view of certain doubts being expressed, this Court requested some information from the Central Government through the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, which was also furnished and this Court also heard the Mr K. Ramanamoorthy, CGSC.

5.2. Mr.K. Elango, the learned counsel appearing on behalf