The main legal point established is that the respondent, as a sales promotion employee, fell under the definition of a 'workman' as per the Sales Promotion Employees Act, and was entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - The management did not plead, deny or prove that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 calendar months from the date of termination on April 01, 2013. It is settled that a fact not denied specifically is admitted by the party. Therefore, there was no need for the Labour Court to have thrashed out in any detail the issue on this jurisdictional fact to acquire jurisdiction to determine the subject matter on compliances of the conditions precedent to retrenchment. As far as the contention goes that the respondent was not a workman by definition, to examine this aspect I have gone through the letter of appointment of the respondent dated December 05, 2001 signed by Mr. Harold Walder, Vice President, Human Resources, Pfizer Limited and accepted by the respondent on December 19, 2001 by appending his signatures on the service agreement. There is sufficient indication in the 18 terms and conditions of the appointment letter that the nature of work assigned to the respondent-workman was to promote sales of company products which required extensive travelling and regular visits to doctors, chemists, wholesalers, C&FAs, depots, Government Hospitals and Institutions and such other places/customers as may be instructed by his superiors from time to time for the purpose of promoting, servicing and developing business. His place of posting and territory would be determined at the management's discretion. The respondent had to keep full and accurate accounts of all the transactions undertaken by him according to the instructions of the company. He was required to submit to the company periodical statement of accounts and other reports as may be required/instructed from time to time. His attendance in the field was to be monitor through daily reports of visits to prospective clients in such form and containing such particulars as may be directed from time to time. Submission of daily reports was essential to attendance. Non-submission or non-receipt of daily reports will be considered as proof of absence from duty. Pfizer described him in his appointment letter as Professional Service Officer (PSO).

2. Though described an "officer" yet he does not appear to have performed any supervisory duties of a managerial nature as he had no control over the working of others and thus would clearly fall on the side of labour and not part of the management. There are indications in the appointment letter from one of its terms that the respondent will be covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The job entailed mainly tour and travel. He would fall in the category of a medical representative or a salesman exercising no managerial or supervisory powers in the hierarchy of the organization. The Labour Court has understood this issue in the correct perspective by referring to the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. A sales promotion employee is a 'workman' by virtue of an amendment made by the State of Punjab to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("1947 Act").

3. The Labour Court went into the evidence and found nothing on record to show that the claimant's duty was of a managerial nature. It was not shown that any staff was working under him or was under his control seeking directions from him. The primary duty assigned to him was to promote the products of the company. As such, the Labour Court held that the claimant's case falls under the definition of Sales Promotion Employees and the contention put forth by the management in this regard that he is not a "workman" did not hold good.

4. The Labour Court relied on the decision of this Court in Ripu Daman Bhanot vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, 1997 (76) FLR 476 and the Supreme Court judgment in SPIC Pharmaceuticals Division vs. Authority Under Section 48 (1) of A.P. and another, 2007 (2) SCT 561. The Supreme Court observed in this case that th