The Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving sales promotion employees, and termination without a proper inquiry is deemed illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Jeetesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 and Sri Amar Nath Tripathi for respondent No.1-workman.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is against the award dated 28.11.2021 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow whereby he has allowed the claim of respondent No.1 and has held him to be in continuous service from 28.12.2003 on which date his services were illegally terminated and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to respondent No.1 and also back wages from the date of his termination i.e. 28.12.2003 till the date of his death i.e. 22.1.2020 at the rate of 50 percent of his salary.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs in India. It has also been stated that they had engaged the services of respondent No.1 as a medical representative by means of appointment order dated 16.10.1990, initially on probation and subsequently his services were confirmed with effect from 1.5.1991. The duties of Respondent No.1 while working as a medical representative included the work of canvassing for promoting sales of the products, carrying samples of medicines and other incidental products of the petitioner company to various agencies and doctors for enhancement of their sales. After expiry of sometime of his working with opposite party No.1 started indulging in various acts of misconducts like submitting false reports, misusing the excess promotional materials, working less on the schedule days and availed unauthorized leaves without prior information for which he was given warning letters. Subsequently the respondent No.1 started indulging in illegal acts, committed grave misconduct by starting manufacturing and marketing of fake and spurious drugs, medicines and other medical products. It is in aforesaid circumstances that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and he was also taken into custody on 31.12.2003 but after sometime he was enlarged on bail. When respondent No.1 was taken into custody a decision was taken by the petitioner to dispense with his services and accordingly in exercise of the powers under clause 13 of the appointment letter his services were terminated by the giving him one month's salary in lieu of the notice.

4. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner had raised industrial dispute in which initially conciliation proceedings were initiated but it resulted in failure and accordingly reference was made to Labour Court to decide the validity of his termination order dated 31.12.2003 and also to the reliefs to which he was entitled to. The petitioner was put to notice in the said proceedings. They had put in appearance and also opposed the claim preferred by respondent No.1. It is after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties and lead evidence in support of their contentions that the labour court had decided the said case on 18.11.2021.

5. The labour court had duly considered the facts as stated by the workman who had also supported his case by oral and documentary evidence. It was stated that various domestic inquiries were initiated against the workman for his alleged misconduct and instead of concluding the said proceedings the petitioner had terminated his services by giving notice simplicitor in lieu of one month's wages. The labour court was of the considered view that considering various complaints of misconduct levelled against the workman which were of serious nature and pertaining to manufacturing spurious drugs it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have initiated domestic inquiry and should have given due opportunity to the workman before terminating his services but instead of conducting domestic inquiry t