Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
(2.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-4, U.P., Kanpur in Misc. Case No.61 of 2012 (Prashant Swaroop Rohtagi v. Alkem Laboratories Limited & Ors.), in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act, 1947'), instituted by the opposite party for recovery of certain dues under Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act, 1976').
(3.) This order is being challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the labour court in adjudicating the claim of private respondent no2, in exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. To substantiate his submissions, two objections raised by the petitioner employer before the labour court on its jurisdiction, have been contended by its counsel before this Court:- (1) The claimant-respondent was holding the post in the factory in managerial capacity and was superintending the work of Area Manager and Marketing Executive and was drawing the salary of Rs.36,000/- and odd. That being the position, he being not covered within the definition of 'workman' as provided under the Act, his claim was not entertainable. (2) The claimant-respondent was transferred from Kanpur to Chennai as per terms and conditions of his service vide order dated 13.5.2011 w.e.f. 1.6.2011, but he deliberately did not join and, as a result, since 8.2.2012 he was stopped from working. Since February 2012, till the presentation of the claim under Section 33-C(2), the concerned employee did not work at all. There was no question of grant of benefit to him for the said period.;