Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Management – Respondent
O.P.No.113 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Raja
For the Respondents:
Sales promotion employees, though excluded from the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s), are covered under Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act and thus entitled to protections and remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 - Section 6(2) - Definition of 'Workman' - Eligibility of sales promotion employees for redressal under Industrial Disputes Act - Clarification that medical representatives are not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) but are covered by Section 6(2) of Sales Promotion Employees Act making ID Act applicable to them. (Paras 7 to 7.12)
(B) Labour Court's Jurisdiction - Determination of status of employee as workman is essential before adjudicating claim petition - Mere designation or managerial role claimed does not exclude employee from definition if primary functions relate to sales promotion. (Paras 7.11 to 7.12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed since 2014 as Area Business Manager by the respondent Management, was terminated in 2020, and challenged the termination and non-recognition as workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court rejected the claim petition holding petitioner was employed mainly in managerial and administrative capacity and not a workman. Petitioner contended that he performed sales promotion duties and was entitled to protection under the Sales Promotion Employees Act.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner’s role is that of a sales promotion employee and not managerial or supervisory in nature; the Labour Court’s rejection was unsustainable. The matter was remanded for consideration on merits treating petitioner as workman within Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: (i) Whether petitioner is entitled to approach Labour Court under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act? (ii) Whether termination was justified? (iii) Relief entitled to petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that sales promotion employees are excluded from 'workman' definition under Section 2(s), but Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act makes Industrial Disputes Act applicable to them, thus they can maintain claim petitions. The designation of the petitioner as a managerial or administrative employee was rejected based on nature of duties. (Paras 7, 7.9 to 7.12) Result : The award rejecting the claim petition was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits considering the petitioner as workman within the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of employment and role of petitioner in sales promotion (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. labour court proceedings and reliance on high court judgments (Para 5) |
| 3. petitioner’s oral and written submissions challenging labour court’s decision (Para 6) |
| 4. detailed analysis of 'workman' definition and applicability of industrial disputes act to sales promotion employees (Para 7) |
| 5. court’s direction for remand and fresh evidence on merits (Para 8) |
| 6. final order setting aside award and remanding for re-adjudication (Para 9) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, made in O.P.No.113 of 2022 dated 31.08.2023. By the said Award, the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short referred to as 'the Act') was rejected by the Labour Court.
A. Case of the Petitioner:
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent / Management on 09.09.2014 as Area Business Manager. When the petitioner had put in sincere and honest service of 2228 days, suddenly, he received an illegal termination order from the Management on 29.08.2020. Therefore, he raised a dispute. Conciliation failed and hence the Claim Petition.
B. Case of the Management:
3. The case of the Management is that it is only the Management, viz., Panacea Biotec Pharma Ltd, which was the employer of the petitioner. Arraying the Managing Director and one of the Director individually and filing a Claim Petition is bad for misjoinder of the relevant parties. The petitioner was appointed as Area Business Manager – Institutional Sales vide appointment letter dated 09.09.2014. He was taken in employment by the respondent with continuity of service with effect from 01.02.2020. He was transferred from Chennai to Udhaipur by the Management vide transfer order dated 29.08.2020, in accordance with the terms of his employment. He did not report for duty till the date of termination, despite several communications as well as verbal instructions. Therefore, he was terminated from service and the Management sent his full and final settlement and has also made payment of gratuity as full and final settlement.
3.1. It is the further case of the Management that the petitioner was not at all a Workman within the meaning of the Act. He was last paid a monthly salary of Rs.56,335/-. Therefore, the petitioner neither claim as a Workman under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act, nor he can claim to be a sales promotion employee as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Sales Promotional Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
C. Petitioner's Submissions:
4. The petitioner claimed that at the time of termination, he was working as Area Business Manager – Institutional Sales. In the institutional sales, the Management appoints experienced and matured person as an official who are the face of the Management and have to deal with the Government institutions like Defence, ESI, CGHS, Railways, State Medical Corporations and all other autonomous bodies etc.,. The role of the Area Business Managers are to deal with the customers working at the position of Directors, Chief Medical Director, Medical Superintendent etc., His competence decides the volume of the business of the Management. The Area Business Manager has to meet his area target and need to meet achievements for the growth of the Management. Further, he has to ensure functional operations of the Management, so that the work exigencies of the Management are made. The petitioner – Raja was performing all the aforesaid jobs and was dealing with the institutional customers like, the defence, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Kerala Medical Services Corporation Limited, Autonomous bodies like, JIPMER, Puducherry.
D.Proceedings before the Labour Court:
5. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Labour Court took up the enquiry. On behalf of the Workman, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and Exhibits W.1 to W.25 were ma
