- (1.)By this petition the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28.3.2019, whereby the reference has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the labour court.
(2.)The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Key Account manager and was working as sales promotion employee with the respondent-Company, which is involved in sale of medicines and providing health care services and the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 22.4.2017. The Labour Commissioner, Indore had made a reference to the Labour Court in respect of correctness and validity of termination of the petitioner's services. Petitioner had filed the claim before the Labour Court with the plea that he had worked on the different posts; such as Marketing Executive, Sr. Marketing Executive, Dy. RBM and Key Account Manager but the basic work of the petitioner was of medical representative and his initial appointment was in the year 2008 and he was covered within the meaning of Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act , 1976 (for short "the Act of 1976"). A further plea was raised that his services were terminated by adopting unfair labour practice, without conducting any enquiry and without giving any retrenchment compensation.
(3.)The respondent by filing the reply had taken the stand that the petitioner was an employee of the managerial capacity and his main work was of management and administration and he had the power to spent up to Rs.5,000/- per month, hence he does not fall within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and his services were terminated by following the due procedure.