Decided on August 10,1971

D.S.NAGARAJ Appellant


- (1.) The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by Venkateswara Rao, J.This appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother, Sambasiva Rao, J., dismissing W.P. No. 5650 of 1968 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.
(2.) The appellant, who was in the service of Sandoz (India) Ltd., as medical representative for a period of 10 years, Was removed from the service whereupon he moved the Labour Officer to make a reference to the Tribunal claiming to be a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Officer declined to make the reference on the ground that the appellant was not a workman and so he filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The learned Judge agreed with the Labour Officer that the Appellant is not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that he was therefore right in declining to make the reference.
(3.) The term "workman" is defined in section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act to mean : " Any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act, in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute but does hot include any such person (i) who is subject to the AT my Act 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers Vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." "Industrial Dispute" has been defined in section 2 (k) to mean: "Any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between Workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person ;" It is therefore, clear that before a reference can be made, the person seeking the reference must be a workman and the matter to be decided should be an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2 (s) and (k) respectively. It if difficult to say that the appellant, who was a medical representative, is a workman within the meaning of the term in section 2 (s) since his duty consisted of introducing and canvassing for the sale of the products manufactured by Sandoz (India) Ltd. Reference may be made in this context to the decision B.S.O. & Distribution Co. v. S. Association where it was held by the Supreme Court that a district sales representative is principally employed for the purpose of promoting the sales of the company and his main work is to canvass and obtain orders and that he cannot be therefore regarded as a Workman. No attempt has been made before us to say that the duties of a medical representative are not the same as those of a district sales representative of a company and the appellant cannot therefore claim that he is a workman in which case it follows that there was no industrial dispute which could be referred by the Labour Officer to the Tribunal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.