1 This letters patent appeal by the original non applicant is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the finding rendered by the Third Labour Court, Nagpur, in I.D.A. No. 20 of 1981 holding that the respondent No. 2 is a workman under S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2 The appellant is a manufacturer of modern drug products while the 2nd respondent is employed by it as a Medical Representative on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,150 by the letter of appointment dated 10th March, 1977. On 28th January, 1981, the 2nd respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming bonus under the provisions of the Bonus Act for claiming the years 1977-78 to 1979-80 amounting to Rs. 2,250. The Labour Court held upon a preliminary issue raised by the appellant, by its order dated May 28, 1982, that the 2nd respondent was a worker within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that finding was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 1525 of 1982 and this Court by its judgment delivered on September 29, 1982 remanded the matter for finding out, if necessary after recording fresh evidence, what were the main and substantial duties of the 2nd respondent and if a decision on that basis were not possible, to decide the case on such test as was found proper under the circumstances. After recording additional evidence, the Labour Court passed an order on June 6, 1984 affirming its earlier finding that the 2nd respondent was a worker and this finding came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 1514 of 1984. The learned Single Judge held that the finding of the Labour Court that the 2nd respondent was a worker, was justified by evidence because in the view of the learned Single Judge sales promotion was not an identifiable job by itself but was a combined result of several jobs, technical, manual and clerical. He found that the main and substantial duties of the 2nd respondent may not fall in any one category, but did fall in some or the other category out of three or in combination of the duties actually performed on a given day or point of time. The finding of the Labour Court affirmed by the learned Single Judge holding the 2nd respondent to be a worker within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is being challenged in this Letter Patent Appeal. We may refer to the operative portion of the order of remand passed in Writ Petition No. 1525 of 1982 decided on September 29, 1982 which was as follows :
"In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is necessary for the learned Judge of 3rd Labour Court first to try to ascertain as to what was the main and substantial work of respondent No. 2 and after ascertaining it to decide as to whether respondent No. 2 could be said to be a workman within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In case the learned Judge comes to a conclusion that application of such a test is not possible in the circumstances of the case it is necessary for him to record such a finding and to proceed to decide the question on such other basis as may be found proper under these circumstances".
Two witnesses came to be examined before the Labour Court before remand, one being the respondent No. 2 Taskar and the other one Waswani who was the Divisional Manager of the appellant. After remand, no additional evidence besides recalling those two witnesses was adduced. It is necessary for us to refer in some detail to the evidence of these two witnesses because according to the learned counsel for the appellant the well established principles laid down for ascertaining who is a worker and what has to be established in reaching that conclusion have not been followed by the Labour Court, and the finding of the Labour Court even otherwise is perverse because the Labour Court reached the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was a worker though the evidence showed unmistakably that the substanti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document