Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment several writ appeals and writ petitions, filed by the appellants, were dismissed. The core question that arose for consideration in the cases before the High Court was whether the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act') oust the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establish ments Act, 1988 (in short the 'Shops Act') and consequently the Authorities under the Shops Act are excluded from entertaining appeals preferred by the aggrieved sales pro motion employees challenging the termina tion of their services. The further question was whether the Authorities constituted under the Shops Act have no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal preferred by the sales promotion employees challenging action of the employees in terminating their services. Several writ petitions filed were dismissed by learned single Judge of the High Court and therefore, writ appeals were filed. The orders of the Authorities under the Shops Act directing the reinstatement of the em ployees into service together with back wages which were challenged in the writ petitions came to be dismissed by learned single Judge. The appellant in each case is involved in the manufacture of pharmaceutical prod ucts. It has engaged the services of employ ees for the purpose of marketing its manu factured products. In common parlance the employees appointed by the pharmaceuti cals companies are known as medical rep resentatives. Charge sheets were issued against the concerned employees and after holding inquiries, services of the employees were terminated. The employees invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court challeng ing the orders of termination but later on they withdrew them and moved the author ity under the Act along with, in some cases, condonation for delay in approaching the Authorities concerned. Notwithstanding se rious objections raised by the employer, the concerned Authority condoned the delay. Writ Petitions filed and writ appeals pre ferred were rejected.
(2.) In the present appeals the stand of the appellants was that the authority under the Shops Act had no jurisdiction to enter tain the so called appeals preferred by the employees as the service conditions of the employee were governed and regulated by the provisions of the Act which is a special enactment. The competent authority rejected the objections raised by the employer. As regards the jurisdiction it was held that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned appellate au thority could not be entertained. Both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in the writ appeal held that the appellate authorities' orders were in order. It did not accept the stand that the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'ID Act') was the only forum and the disputes cannot be raised in any other forum.
(3.) In support of the learned counsel ap pearing for the appellant submitted that the Parliament enacted the Act as it thought that it would be more appropriate to have a separate legislation for governing service condi tions of the Sales Promotion Employees and accordingly made the provisions of the ID Act applicable conferring rights on the Sales Promotion Employees to challenge the orders of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment in the forum created and constituted under the provisions of the ID Act. The Parliament specified application of certain Acts to Sales promotion Employees which include Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Mini mum Wages Act, 1948, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Except these Acts no other Act including the Shops Act shall be applicable.;