- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 11'" DAY OF FEBRUARY 200'), BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'FIQE..SLIBHASH'"z§§$'.--.f§IV BETWEEN: B.N. Sri Hari Rao S/0. B. Nagaraj Rao Aged about 44 years ~ - Rfa.No.11'7', Tata Silk Firm; " KR Road, Basawangudi, " }3a11ga1ore~560 0&4. .. PIFJTITIONER (By Sri. A. Riggn .a.§51§¥;i) AND: 1.
Chaimztan, ~V
M] 3.’-Ranbasgr ab
Devika’ToWer, [1 1*’? Weber,
_;5 N-r:h1″I1 P3396.
‘rze,-g_ 13:21:21» 1 109:;
A ‘V ” Régidfiél Manager.
x I-3a.nga1ore~56O 025.
Lab Ltd.,
. No.1] 1′-;_1,r’ V.B.Comp1cx
21″¥_vF”1<;:c;i*, Opp. Mysore Road
'i'c1cpho:a,c Exchange, Mysore Road,
.. RESPON DENTS
" _ (S3: Sundar Swamy Ramdas and Anand, Advs. for R1,
This Writ: Petition is filed under Articles 226 65 227 of the
Consfitufion of India praying to quash the award Dt.19.0I.200'7
in I.D.No.134/2006 passed by the First Additional Labour Court,
Bangalore. vide Annex-A and order reinstatement of the
V' "Res1:;'-oiident -"gmaeeigyeihent was not happy with the development
to destroy and break the Trade Union, the
' Tmde activities as the District Manager. The meement
_» dated 20* April 2()»()=4 terminated the services of the
..__ «""P€ ¥1'tioner allegng that the petitioner hm made a false report,
'4 alleging that petitioner has not met Dr. Shyam Sunder
-2-
petitioner with full back wages and consequential benefits as
though he was in service from the date of dismissal till the date of
actual re~i:x1statement along with costs, etc.,.
This Petition comm’ g on for
Group this day, the Court mastic the following: ‘ K
9.RB.1L’&”” &
This Writ Petition is ‘
I.D.No.134/2006 on the file Additi¢na1[“.= Coufi.
Bangalore dated 19″‘ 2{3€I’F..:’: “‘
2. Petitioner ‘v”Sect:ion 10(4~A) of
the Industnzag . A3.:;f that, he was
appointed ae__a w.e.f. 18.8.1989 and he
was of the Karnataka State
Medical Association, which is affiliated
to Federafioo’ Sales Representatives of India.
man’ eigemexitxei threatening with dime consequence for his
Bajaj on 29.01.2004 as the said Br. Bajaj was out of station ftom
15.1.2004 to 1.2.2004 on 3 sponsored tour Emm the company. It
V and ‘;1F’_1$i:ui.$scdV
3 ‘ ishaxles promotion employees as workmen within the
u x V A’ Section 2 ciause (3) of the I.I).Act and the dispute is
A under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D.Act. In this
T ” he relied on a judgment reported in IL}? 2001 KAR % Em.
” the matter of ANANT AWADHAIW ~03» PRESIDING’ OFFICER,
-3 –
is further aflegcd that the Company lost confidence on the
petifioner and terminated him on the said ground.
3. Pcfitioner alleged that the ‘ ua.__
viciimization and unfair labour pxacfiéé j
claim pefition of petifioncr was
management, on sevcrai .incifi}:ii:;gg — of thé
Labour Court to entertajy, thcAVAVd~i£’§};g”)_j;1tié:-. without
going into the merit. my mt juxtisdiction. hekd
that the petitioncrV’k;c1ei11″‘}i£3§§i;;;%g_:’ he is a medical
1ep1escntati\gv::’s:i:1§1 by the provisions of
Sales {Cgffifggiifsions of Sezvicc) Act, 1976
(hcrciné;¥ier–_x*cf§éii’:a§- Am. he is not a Workman within
the meaniixgpf (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act
V “4- Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the
}}€:.’i.iA1%:i}S1;1CI; that, Section 6 sub–~scctio11 (2) of thr: Act
LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA AND ANOTHER and submitted that,
i
Iéspofidgfinf. submitted that, there is inifial dispuiae as regaxd
‘ _ mp1ésenta§1fiv’e;or not. He submitted that, management has not
H H ‘T he is a medical mpzesentative or sakes promotion
manag¢:t11cnt’s case is that. he is not a workman
the meaning of Section 2 (S) of the I.D.Act and he comes
” u11cicr the supezvision and managerial capacity. He submitted
-4-
this Court_ _considering the pmvisions of Section 6 s11b~section (2)
of the Act and also relying on the tiecision of the Apex”
hekd that, the sales pmmotion employee is a
the meaning of Section 2(a) of the I_ndu_s1:riai’ 5% .0:
also relied on an unreported
W.P.No.30672/ 2000 dccidedw’0’_o:;.. 10¢!
submitteti that, learned Single 011 the
decision of the Apex in_’L~i094(5) $00 737 in the
matter of H.R.ADYAN7HA SANDOZ mvnm)
LE4ITED “«’Ehc sales pminotion
employees that, the award of
disnuwéug age; v0;15.s;;i;:¢ Se comraxy to the provisions of
\,
Section
lcamed Counsel appearing for the
a sales promotion employee a medical
that, though the: Labour Court has rejected the dispute only on
A « ,¢mgloy.s¢ie,_
-5-
the said ground, but on merit and the nature of work. the –
petitioner is not entitled to raise the dispute.
6. It is not in dispute that the
rejected the dispute only on the ground that,
medical representative and he comes
promotion employee, he does nm’. e
meaning of Section 2(3) of the _ Hleas not V
goes into the question as te”whetiie1@*_ evorldng as
a medical representative or is mainminable
on any other is justified or
not.
7. “I?§ewe§fer is know whether the sales
promotion zeIfip1oyee:/ ‘3fi.4.’;e:r1_ica;I’–re’1;resentatio11 is worlman er not
in this regard ‘ifis refer section 6(2) of the Act.
Acts tn sales promotion
_{1}« .
‘{2}. igievisions of the Industriai Disputes Ad,
z”947,'(14.ef 194?), cm inforoefor the time being, shed!
appfy ‘:9, or in reiation to, sales promotion employees
_ ‘ .. they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the
” rfwanfngof£fwAeiandfortfwpurposesqfwty
Vpm’-ceeding under the Act in relation to an indushial
dispute, a sates promotion ernpleyee shali be deemed
to incfude a salw promotfon employee who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
‘.
.. –
“W
-7-
Both the Counsel submit that. a data be fixed for appearance.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the 1 Additional
Labour Court, Bangalore on 25% February 2009. : 7 ”