The central legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether a person qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on the nature of the industry, type of work, and organizational setup.

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

The challenge in the present intra-court appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 20.12.2016 in Writ Petition No. 6862/2016 (Novartis India Ltd. v. Vipin Shrivastava and others) wherein challenge made by the appellant to the Award and other orders passed by the Labour Court remained unsuccessful.

2. Though, before the learned Single Bench inter-alia challenge to the Award was also on the ground that it is an ex parte award but in view of undisputed documents on record, mostly produced by the workman himself, we need not go into the question as to whether the award is an ex parte Award or not but the only question required to be examined is: as to whether the Medical Representative employed with the appellant w.e.f. 01.12.2004 is a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”) competent to raise a dispute before the Labour Court.

3. The brief facts borne out from the record are that the respondent was appointed as Medical Representative w.e.f. 01.12.2004 but his services were terminated on 21.12.2013 without conducting any inquiry or issuing notice. The respondent raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his services whereas, the appellant submitted that the respondent is a Salesman engaged in the promotion of sales, who is not a workman, therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

4. The basis of the termination is that a separation package was issued for 139 employees including the respondent on 17.01.2013 over and above the retrenchment compensation who chose to resign. Resultantly, the services of 139 employees including the present respondent were dispensed with.

5. Learned Labour Court held that the services of the respondent have been terminated on the ground of non-performance but there is no evidence to such effect and, therefore, the termination of services of the respondent is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The learned Labour Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in H.R. Adyanthaya and others v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others (1994) 5 SCC 737, to hold that the Medical Representative is a workman, competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Reliance was also placed upon a Single Bench order of this Court in German Remedies Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Bhopal and others (2006 Vol. II, LLJ 8 MP). After returning such finding, the Labour Court set aside the termination of services of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement with full back-wages.

6. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, the learned Single Bench again relied upon paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment passed in H.R. Adyanthaya’s case (supra) to hold that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and thus, dispute could be raised by him before the Labour Court.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent is not a workman as he is a qualified Pharmacist. It is asserted that the workman, as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, means a person who is employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work but a workman, who is employed in a supervisory capacity and draws salary of more than Rs.1,600/- per month prior to amendment in the ID Act by Act No.24 of 2010 wherein Rs.1,600/- was substituted to Rs.10,000/-, is excluded. It is argued that since the respondent was employed as a Pharmacist in the sales promotion of the medicines manufactured by the appellant, therefore, he would not be covered within the meaning of word “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. It is also argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya’s case (supra) has not been examined in right perspective wherein the Supre