JUDGMENT

1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28.3.2019, whereby the reference has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the labour court.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Key Account manager and was working as sales promotion employee with the respondent-Company, which is involved in sale of medicines and providing health care services and the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 22.4.2017. The Labour Commissioner, Indore had made a reference to the Labour Court in respect of correctness and validity of termination of the petitioners services. Petitioner had filed the claim before the Labour Court with the plea that he had worked on the different posts; such as Marketing Executive, Sr. Marketing Executive, Dy. RBM and Key Account Manager but the basic work of the petitioner was of medical representative and his initial appointment was in the year 2008 and he was covered within the meaning of Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act of 1976'). A further plea was raised that his services were terminated by adopting unfair labour practice, without conducting any enquiry and without giving any retrenchment compensation.

3. The respondent by filing the reply had taken the stand that the petitioner was an employee of the managerial capacity and his main work was of management and administration and he had the power to spent up to Rs.5,000/- per month, hence he does not fall within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and his services were terminated by following the due procedure.

4. The Labour Court had permitted the parties to lead evidence and had decided the first issue, as to whether the petitioner was appointed in administration and managerial capacity or he falls within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative and was doing the sales related work independently and he does not fall within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Accordingly the reference has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

5. The petitioner in person submits that the labour Court has not taken into account the provisions contained in Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 and it has also not taken into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2000(7) SCC 675 , in the matter of H.R. Adyanthaya and others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others reported in 1994(5) SCC 737 as also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of R.R. Iyer Vs. R.P.G. Life Sciences Ltd. reported in 2010 MPLSR 312 .

6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue that the medical representatives are not workmen, has already been decided by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, and the judgments of the Supreme Court which the petitioner is relying upon are rendered in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

7. Having heard the petitioner and counsel for the respondent No.1, it is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner was working as Medical Representative with the respondent. The issue in this regard came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sanat Kumar Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd. reported in 1997 LLR 21 wherein after considering Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 and the requirement of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, it has been held that:-

'11. This goes to show that a person engaged in managerial or administrative capacity or if, employed in a supervisory capac