A medical sales representative drawing a salary exceeding the wage limit specified in the definition of "sales promotion employee" under the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976, is not a "workman" within the meaning of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act or a "sales promotion employee" within the meaning of the 1976 Act, and therefore, a reference made by the State Government for adjudication of a dispute regarding termination of his service is illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS petition was presented on November 1, 1987 and the parties have exchanged affidavits. Since a long time has elapsed the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

( 2 ) THE principal prayer made in the petition is that the reference made by the State Government on October 18, 1986, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial disputes Act be quashed. Sri D. Mittal-respondent No. 3 was employed as Medical Sales representative in the petitioner Company. His services were terminated w. e. f, March 20, 1985. It appears that he raised a dispute that the termination of his service was not proper. The State government vide its order dated October 18, 1986 made a reference to the Labour Court, Agra. The reference was whether termination of service of D. Mittal, Medical Sales Representative w. e. f. March 20, 1985 was valid/proper and if not, what benefit he was entitled to get.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that respondent No. 3 was employed by the petitioner Company as medical Sales Representative solely for sales promotion work and for selling company products. The appointment order was issued to him by the Head Office of the Company from Bombay vide their letter dated April 21, 1965. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the respondent No. 3 joined on May 21, 1965 and underwent training in Bombay. The services of respondent No. 3 were terminated vide letter dated March 8, 1985 which was effective from Mach 20, 1985 and at the time of termination of his service, respondent No. 3 was getting salary of Rs. 2842/- per month.

( 4 ) THE main submission of Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that respondent No. 3 was not a "workman" as defined in U. P. Industrial Disputes Act nor was he a "sales Promotion Employee" as defined in Sales: Promotion Employees (Condition of Service act), 1976 and, therefore, the reference made by the State Government was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The question whether a Medical Sales Representatives is a workman and whether any: dispute regarding his termination of service can be referred to the Labour Court or industrial Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act has recently been considered by a Constitution Bench in H. R. Adanthaya v. Y. Sandoz, (India Ltd.) (1995-I-LLJ-303), and it has been held that prior to May 6, 1987 when Sales Promotion employees (condition of Service) Act; 1976 was amended by Act No. 48 of 1976 a Sales promotion Employee was, firstly, who was engaged to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business or both, and secondly only such of them who drew wages not exceeding Rs. 750/- per mensem (excluding commission) or those who had drawn wages (including commission) not exceeding 9,000/ - per annum whether they were doing supervisory work or not. In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 was getting total emoluments of rs. 2842/- per months at the time when his services were terminated on March 20, 1985 and termination of his service took place prior to enforcement of amending Act No. 48 of 1976 w. e. f. May 6, 1987 by which the definition of Sales Promotion Emp. oyee was expanded so as to include all sales promotion employees without a ceiling on their wages except those employees who were engaged in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per mensem or those employees who were engaged mainly on managerial or administrative capacity. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court the respondent No. 3 was not a workman nor the dispute raised by him could be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under the provisions of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The reference made by the State Government is, therefore, clearly illegal and without any authority of law.

( 5 ) SHRI Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has however submi