Job title does not dictate workman status; actual responsibilities determine classification under Industrial Disputes Act, enabling employee to raise disputes.

Under assail is the writ order dated 28.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.352 of 2024.

2. The respondents are the appellants before this Court. The respondents raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the validity of the dismissal order. The Labour Court passed an Award that the respondent is not a “workman” within the definition of Section 2(s) of the . Aggrieved by the Award, the workman preferred a Writ Petition before the Writ Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

3. The Writ Court considered the facts that the respondent joined in the appellant Management on 09.09.2014 as Area Business Manager and he has served about 2228 days. While so, the order of termination was directly issued by the Management on 29.08.2020. Thus, an Industrial Dispute came to be raised. After conciliation, the Labour Court, adjudicated the issues and held that the respondent is not a workman.

4. The writ Court elaborately considered the scope of definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of theIndustrial Disputes Actand remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for adjudication of the issues on merits, considering the respondent as a workman under the provisions of the . 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the respondent was holding the post of Area Business Manager, which is supervisory in nature. . Thus, the Labour Court considered the duties and responsibilities attached to the post held by the respondent/workman and passed an award that the respondent is not a workman under theIndustrial Disputes Act. The writ Court has reversed the order mainly on the ground that though the nomenclature of the post of Area Business Manager, no other employee was working under the respondent and he was directly performing the duties and responsibilities akin to that of a medical representative. The appellant Management is a pharmaceutical Company and he was working as a medical representative to takes orders from various establishments and place it before the Company. Therefore, the nomenclature, Manager, should not stand in the way of the respondent to raise the dispute as a workman under the . 6. Learned counsel for the Management would rely on the judgment of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofH.R.Adayanthaya and Others Vs. Sandoz(India) Ltd., and others reported in(1994) 5 SCC 737, 1(1994) 5 SCC 737. However, the scope of the judgment has been considered by the writ Court in paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment which reads as under.

7…..

7.11. The Labour Court in this case only relied upon the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. A perusal of the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it only

relied upon the earlier pronouncement of the Division Bench of that Court inNovartis India Limited's case(cited supra). InNovartis India Limited's case(cited supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had only held that the Sales Promotion Employees are not Workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. Further, in the instant case, by virtue ofSection 6(2) Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, the provisions of the Act has been applied. In that view of the situation, the Labour Court in only one sentence holds the position of the petitioner is administrative and managerial in nature. In this regard, as rightly contended by the Party-in-Person, the designation of the employee is irrelevant. When the work flow chart itself shows that there is no other employee under the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be stated to be in a supervisory or managerial capacity. He is called as a Area Sales Manager, because, he has to pitch and promote the sales. He has to manage only the sales target. There