SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1200

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Ripu Daman Bhanot
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Civil Writ Petition No. 15969 of 1995,
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 1996

The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to sales promotion employees by virtue of the deeming clause incorporated in Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.

Headnote:

SALES PROMOTION EMPLOYEES ACT - APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 6(2) - OMISSION - NOTIFICATION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS - RATIO OF SUPREME COURT DECISION - MANIFEST INJUSTICE - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

A medical representative, appointed in 1985 and terminated in 1990 after a domestic enquiry, filed a dispute with the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that the reference was not maintainable as Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (1976 Act) was omitted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act was not omitted as the Central Government had not given effect to Clause 24 of the Amending Act No. 46 of 1982 Act by notification. The Court also held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to sales promotion employees by virtue of the deeming clause incorporated in Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act.

Issues: 1. Whether a dispute raised by a sales representative/medical representative can be tried under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act stand omitted by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of sales promotion employees in Section 2(d) of the 1976 Act includes any person employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business or both, except those engaged in supervisory capacity and drawing wages exceeding sixteen hundred rupees per mensem or those engaged mainly in managerial or administrative capacity. 2. Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act makes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applicable to sales promotion employees as they apply to workmen within the meaning of the Act. 3. The Central Government had not given effect to Clause 24 of the Amending Act No. 46 of 1982 Act by notification, therefore, Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act was not omitted.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Labour Court's award, and directed the Labour Court to decide the case on merit within six months.

Judgment

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated May 2.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, the petitioner has filed this petition with the prayer to quash the impugned award and to direct the Labour Court to decide the dispute on merits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative of M/s. Cipla Limited with effect from January 8, 1985. His service was terminated on June 18, 1990 after a domestic enquiry was held by the employer. The dispute raised by him came to be referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana by the Punjab Governments order dated April 10, 1991. After the dispute remained pending adjudication for over three years, respondents No.2 and 3 filed an application dated March 10, 1995 for rejection of the claim of the workman. The petitioner contested that application by alleging that his case was covered by the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 1976 Act ). After hearing the parties, the Labour Court upheld the contention raised on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 that the reference was not maintainable. In arriving at this conclusion, the Labour Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in H. R. Adyanthaya etc. etc. V/s. Sandoz (India) Limited, etc. etc. , (1995-I-LLJ-303 ). The Labour Court also held that the provisions of Sec.6 (2) of 1976 Act stand omitted by virtue of Sec.24 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of that provision.

3. The main question, which requires determination by this Court, is whether a dispute raised by a sales representative/medical representative can be tried under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ancillary question which would require adjudication by this Court is whether the provisions of Sec.6 (2) of 1976 Act stand omitted by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982.

4. Before coming to the main question, we may mention that the various provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have been amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Central Act No.46 of 1982 ). Sec.1 (2) of the Amendment Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, notify. By virtue of Sec.24 of the Amendment Act No.46 of 1982 Act, Sec.6 (2) of 1976 Act has been omitted. The provisions contained in Clauses a b d to k of Sec.2 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Amendment Act have been brought into force by notification No. S. O.606 (E) dated August 21, 1984. This shows that in its wisdom, the Central Government has not given effect to Clause 24 of Amending Act No.46 of 1982 Act. As a logical consequence, it will have to be held that Sec.6 (2) of 1976 Act has not been omitted and it continues to remain in force. Coming to the main question, we may deem it proper to reproduce Sec.2 (d) and Sec.6 (1) and (2) of 1976 Act which read as under:

"2 (d ). sales promotion employees means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both, but does not include any such person: (i) who, being employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding sixteen hundred rupees per mensem; or (ii) who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; Explanation:-

For the purpose of this clause, the wages per mensem of a person shall be deemed to be the amount equal to thirty times his total wages (whether or not including, or comprising only of, commission) in respect of the continuous period of his service falling within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, divided by the number of days comprising that period of service. "

"application of certain






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top