{"id":141836,"date":"2007-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-16T11:31:20","modified_gmt":"2018-11-16T06:01:20","slug":"mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6543-6544 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nMr. C. Gupta\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGlaxoSmithKlin Pharmaceutical Limited\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tAppellant calls in question legality of the judgment
\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
\ndismissing the writ appeals filed by the appellant.  Both the
\nappeals were filed to set aside the common judgment and
\norder passed in Writ Petition nos.462\/95 and 695\/96 by a
\nlearned Single Judge on 13.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
3.\tOn 4.8.1976 Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the “said Company”) which has now been taken
\nover by the present respondent no.1 (Glaxo-SmithKline
\nPharmaceuticals Ltd.) indicated their intention to advertise the
\npost of “Industrial Relations Executive”. Since members of the
\nstaff who fell in the category of “Management Staff Grade-III”
\nwere also entitled to apply for the vacant post which fell in
\n“Management Staff Grade-II”, an advance staff notice was also
\ntaken out by the Company. The same incorporated the text of
\nthe advertisement which was to follow. The relevant part from
\nthe advertisement which pertains to the duties required to be
\nperformed by the selected candidates was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The selected candidate will advise the
\nCorporate personal Department and through it
\nvarious establishments of the Company on all
\nmatters relating to Labour Laws; operate
\nvarious applications and claims and appear
\nselectively before Labour authorities such as
\nConciliation Officers, Labour Courts and
\nIndustrial Tribunals.\n<\/p>\n
An important aspect of the job will be to assist
\nthe I.R. Manager in developing the framework
\nfor settlements and in dealing with Unions.
\nThis is a challenging job with a span of advice
\nextending to three factories, four branches and
\nfifteen u-country depots.  The prospects for a
\nresults-oriented man are excellent.\n<\/p>\n
Qualifications and Experience:\n<\/p>\n
At least a First Class Law Degree, preferably a
\nMaster’s Degree.\n<\/p>\n
Detailed knowledge of case laws and
\nproceedings pertaining to labour laws.
\nThree to five years experience of litigation
\nbefore Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and
\nother authorities.\n<\/p>\n
Ability to get on with people.\n<\/p>\n
Age: Around 30 years”.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn 17.3.1977 the Company issued a letter offering an
\nappointment to the appellant as “Industrial Relations
\nExecutive”.  This letter mentioned that the appellant would be
\na member of the Management Staff in Grade II-A and that the
\nappointment would take effect from the date of the appellant
\njoining the company, which was required to be earlier than
\n18.6.1977. Though the terms and conditions of appointment
\nwere contained in this appointment letter, the exact nature of
\nduties and functions to be performed were not laid down
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tClause17 of the appointment letter provided for
\ntermination of the appointment and was in the following
\nterms:-\n<\/p>\n
“The Company may, at any time and without
\nassigning any reason, terminate this
\nappointment upon giving not less than three
\nmonths notice in writing or salary in lieu
\nthereof.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn pursuance of the appointment letter, the appellant
\njoined services of the Company on 13.7.1977. On 15.9.1982,
\nvide a termination letter dated 15.9.1982, the services of the
\nappellant came to be terminated from the close of business on
\nthat day.  The said termination was made in pursuance of
\nclause17 of the letter of appointment dated 17.8.1977 on the
\nground that the services of the petitioner were no longer
\nrequired.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tBeing aggrieved by such termination, the appellant
\nattempted to get his grievance redressed through the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Labour (Conciliation) but the Conciliation
\nfailed and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner of Labour
\n(Conciliation) by his order of Reference No.
\nCL\/IDE\/AJD\/2A\/G-772(84) referred the matter for
\nadjudication.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tConsequently, in 1985, the present appellant filed his
\nstatement of claim in the Reference Court being the First
\nLabour Court at Bombay. In his statement of claim for the
\nreasons mentioned therein, the appellant claimed to be a
\nworkman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as his work was of
\n“skilled, technical and clerical nature, apart from it being
\noperational”.  He claimed that termination of his services were
\nillegal, invalid and void on account of non-compliance of the
\nprovisions of Section 25N of the Act in as much as no notice or
\nretrenchment compensation had been paid to him. He also
\ncontended that clause17 of the letter of appointment dated
\n17.3.1977 was illegal in as much as it was against the
\nprovisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
\n1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) and was void as ultra vires
\nSection 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (in short the
\n‘Contract Act’). He sought the prayer of reinstatement in
\nservice with full back wages with continuity of service and all
\nother attendant benefits.  Reference was made under Section
\n10(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn the reference, the respondent-Company filed its
\nwritten statement on 8.8.1985. In the written statement the
\nCompany disputed the stand that the appellant was a
\nworkman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.  It was
\ndenied that the termination of his services was illegal for
\nalleged non-compliance of provisions of Section 25N of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 or that it violated any provisions
\nof Constitution or of Section 23 of the Contract Act.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tBoth parties led evidence in the reference before the
\nLabour Court. The appellant led his own evidence and on
\nbehalf of the respondent-company the evidence of one R.P.
\nBharucha who was then the Director of the Family Products
\nDivision of the Company, who had been the Central Personal
\nManger of the Company at the time when the appellant had
\nbeen appointed and had been the Chief Personnel Manager of
\nthe Company on the date of the Appellant’s termination was
\nled. Both parties produced and relied upon documentary
\nevidence in support of their respective claim.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tUltimately, by an award passed by the Presiding Officer,
\nFirst Labour Court, Bombay on 31.10.1994, the claim of the
\nappellant was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in
\nservice with continuity in service w.e.f. 11.12.1982 to
\n30.11.1989 with all consequential benefits including pay
\nrevision if any. It was, however, held that the appellant would
\nnot be entitled for any back wages from 30.11.1989 till the
\ndate of the award and would not be entitled for any relief of
\nfuture reinstatement from the date of the award though he
\nwould be entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000\/- in lieu
\nthereof.  This was primarily on the ground that appellant had
\ngiven false information at the time of appointment.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tBoth the appellant as well as the Company filed writ
\npetitions before the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid
\naward dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, First
\nLabour Court, Bombay. The Company filed Writ Petition
\nNo.462 of 1995 and the appellant filed Writ Petition No.695 of
\n1996. Since both the writ petitions impugned the same award,
\nthey were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and
\norder delivered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
\non 13.4.1999.  By this judgment and order the learned Single
\nJudge held that the appellant could not be said to be a
\nworkman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.
\nNotwithstanding his conclusion that the appellant was not a
\nworkman, and that the Industrial Court would not have any
\njurisdiction to decide the dispute, the learned Single Judge
\nfurther dealt with the merits of the matter and arrived at the
\nconclusion that the Company had ample reason to resort
\nclause-17 of the appointment letter and terminate the
\nappellant. Ultimately the learned Single Judge made rule
\nabsolute in Writ Petition No.462 of 1995 filed by the Company
\nand dismissed Writ Petition No.695 of 1996 filed by the
\npresent appellant, thus quashing the award of the Labour
\nCourt dated 31.10.1994.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt is against this judgment and order passed by the
\nlearned Single Judge, the Civil Appeal No.1879 of 1999 came
\nto be filed by the appellant. The appellant subsequently filed
\nCivil Appeal No.170 of 2000 which also impugned the same
\njudgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe appellant’s main contention before the High Court
\nwas that he was a qualified legal person and the nature of his
\nduties, work and functions were to advise the management of
\nthe company which required knowledge of law and the matters
\narising out of the affairs of the company. It was submitted that
\nthe petitioner must be said to be employed to do technical
\nwork within the meaning of Part 1 of Section 2(s) of the Act.  It
\nwas further the stand that the Act was amended in 1984 de-
\nlinking the words “skilled” and “unskilled” from the word
\n“manual” and by adding the word “operational”. It was,
\ntherefore, pleaded that the finding that the appellant was
\ndoing managerial or administrative work is not correct.
\nLearned Single Judge did not accept the contention and the
\nDivision Bench also did not accept the contention.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe amendment of the expression ‘workman’ under
\nSection 2(s) clearly brought the appellant within the ambit of
\nthe said expression.  The amendment was made on 21.8.1984
\nand reference on 29.9.1995. According to him, the date of
\nreference is material, even if it is conceded for the sake of
\nargument but not accepted that the un-amended provisions
\napply, yet considering the nature of the work which is
\ntechnical in nature the appellant was a workman.  Further, it
\nwas not manual as has been held by the High Court.  Finally,
\nit was submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under
\nArticle 142 of the Constitution, the forum is really of no
\nconsequence, if the termination is held to be bad.  The relief
\ncould be moulded under Article 142 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tStrong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in
\nRuston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam<\/a> (1976 (3) SCC 71) to
\ncontend that the amended definition applies.  It was further
\nsubmitted that the High Court was not justified in placing
\nreliance on the last line of paragraph 15 of Burmah Shell Oil
\nStorage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma
\nShell Management Staff Association and Ors.<\/a> (1970 (3) SCC
\n378 at p.389).\n<\/p>\n
18.\tLearned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
\nsubmitted that the amendment is clearly prospective. The
\nquestion of creation of new rights is really not relevant.  The
\nquestion is one of status. Only a new forum is created.  If
\nappellants’ claim is accepted, the penal consequences flowing
\nfrom Section 25N & Q of the Act will be applicable.  It has been
\nfound factually that there was no technical work done. The
\nsalary received by the appellant was much higher than
\nreceived by a workman. The advertisement spelt out the
\nrequirements and responsibilities. The Labour Court had
\nrelied on a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court which
\nwas set aside by this Court in Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills
\nLtd. v. Ajit Singh<\/a> (2005 (3) SCC 232) in which it was held that
\nLegal Assistant is not workman.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said
\ndecision is not applicable because in that case the Legal
\nAssistant had a license to practice.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIt is not in dispute that the nomenclature is really not of
\nany consequence. Whether a particular employee comes within
\nthe definition of workman has to be decided factually.  In fact,
\nit has been found as a matter with reference to various factual
\naspects that the duties undertaken by the appellant
\noverwhelmingly fall in the managerial cadre. So far as the
\nnature of work is concerned, the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt took note of several aspects as reflected in para 29 of
\nthe judgment.  The same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“In the evidence adduced on behalf of the
\nCompany, its Director Shri Rustam Padam
\nBharucha deposed that the duties of the
\nappellant were to represent the Company in
\nConciliation proceedings, before Government
\nauthorities under the Factories Act. E.S.I. Act,
\nP.F. Act, Contract Labour (Regulation &
\nAbolition) Act, to represent the management as
\nan Enquiry officer or as the management’s
\nRepresentative in domestic enquiries, to guide
\nand advise the management’s representative in
\ndomestic enquiries, to advise him about the
\nline of cross-examination in such enquiries,
\nadvise about the quantum of punishment to be
\ninflicted in disciplinary proceedings.  To give
\nadvise on queries raised by the management
\npertaining to the interpretation of statutes or
\nsettlement with the Unions or regarding
\nenquiries raised by Government authorities to
\nbrief witnesses, to prepare drafts for the
\nperusal of Counsel to brief Counsel on facts as
\nwell as law to be present in Court when the
\narguments were taking place in judicial
\nmatters related to the Company, to keep in
\ntouch with the latest case laws and
\namendments to the labour legislations, to
\nensure that the management fulfilled its
\nobligations under the Labour legislations and
\nto advise the management on provisions of
\nsettlement.”\n<\/p>\n
21.\tIt has been pleaded that the amendment to the definition
\nof workman brings the appellant within the amended
\ndefinition.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Rameshwar
\nRahod (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 1849) it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“It was next contended by the respondent
\nbefore the High Court that the Criminal Court
\nwas empowered under Section 7 of the Act to
\nconfiscate the vehicle after due and proper
\ninquiry and therefore the proceedings by the
\nDistrict Collector under Section 6A and
\nSection 68 of the Act should be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance was placed on several decisions and
\nauthorities.  Our attention was drawn to the
\ndecision of the Mysore High Court in the case
\nof The State v. Abdul Rasheed, AIR<\/a> 1967
\nMysore 231, Sri Bharat Mahey v. State of State
\nof U.P.<\/a> 1975 Crl. LJ 890 (All) as well as the
\ndecision of the learned single Judge in State of
\nM.P. v. Basant Kumar, 1972 Jab LJ Short Note
\nNo.99.  On a consideration of the relevant
\nauthorities, the High Court came to the
\nconclusion that the criminal Court had
\njurisdiction to deal with the matter.  Mr.
\nDeshpande sought to argue that in view of the
\nenactment of the provisions of Section 6A as
\nwell as Section 7 of the Act, it cannot be held
\nthat the criminal Court continued to retain
\njurisdiction.  He submitted that in view of the
\nenactment of these provisions, it would be
\nuseless to hold that the criminal Court
\ncontinued to retain jurisdiction, otherwise the
\nvery purpose of enacting Section 6A read with
\nSection 7 would be defeated.  We are, however,
\nunable to accept this contention because
\nnormally under the Criminal Procedure Code,
\nthe Criminal Courts of the country have the
\njurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary
\ncriminal Court in respect of a crime can only
\nbe inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion
\nflowing from necessary implication of the new
\nAct.  In view of the language used and in the
\ncontext in which this language has been used,
\nwe are of the opinion that the High Court was
\nright in coming to the conclusion that the
\nCriminal Court retained jurisdiction and was
\nnot completely ousted of the jurisdiction.  In
\nthat view of the matter, the High Court was
\ntherefore right in passing the order under
\nconsideration and in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case to return the vehicle
\nto the respondent on furnishing the security.
\nIn the premise the appeal must fail and is
\ndismissed.  There will, however, be no order as
\nto costs.”\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn the present case, we find that for determining the
\nnature of amendment, the question is whether it affects the
\nlegal rights of individual workers in the context that if they fall
\nwithin the definition then they would be entitled to claim
\nseveral benefits conferred by the Act. The amendment should
\nbe also one which would touch upon their substantive rights.
\nUnless there is a clear provision to the effect that it is
\nretrospective or such retrospectivity can be implied by
\nnecessary implication or intendment, it must be held to be
\nprospective. We find no such clear provision or anything to
\nsuggest by necessary implication or intendment either in the
\namending Act or in the amendment itself.  The amendment
\ncannot be said to be one which affects procedure. In so far as
\nthe amendment substantially changes the scope of the
\ndefinition of the term “workman” it cannot be said to be merely
\ndeclaratory or clarificatory.  In this regard we find that entirely
\nnew category of persons who are doing “operational” work was
\nintroduced first time in the definition and the words “skilled”
\nand “unskilled” were made independent categories unlinked to
\nthe word “manual”.  It can be seen that the Industrial
\nDisputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 was enacted by Parliament
\non 31.8.1982.  However, the amendment itself was not
\nbrought into force immediately and in sub-section (1) of
\nSection 1 of the Amending Act, it was provided that it would
\ncome into force on such day as the Central Government may
\nbe Notification in the official Gazette, appoint. Ultimately, by a
\nNotification the said amendment was brought into force on
\n21.8.1984.  Although this Court has held that the amendment
\nwould be prospective if it is deemed to have come with effect
\non a particular day, a provision in the amendment Act to the
\neffect that amendment would become operative in the future,
\nwould have similar effect.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tTherefore, by the application of the tests mentioned
\nabove, it is clear that the definition of workman as amended
\nmust, therefore, presumed to be prospective.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tIn this regard we would like to give one further reason as
\nto why the definition of workman as prevailing on the date of
\ndismissal should be taken into account. When the workman is
\ndismissed, it is usually contended (as has been done in the
\npresent case) that the relevant conditions precedent for
\nretrenchment under Section 25-N having not been followed
\nand that, therefore, the termination is illegal.  Section 25-Q of
\nthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that
\ncontravention of the provision of Section 25-N shall be
\npunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
\none month or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000\/- or with
\nboth.  It is, therefore, clear that on the date of dismissal, the
\nemployer must act according to the then prevailing provision
\nof law.  It is only in respect of a workman who is then within
\nthe definition of Section 2(s) of the Act that the employer is
\nrequired to follow the condition mentioned in Section 25-N,
\nfailing which, he will commit an offence. If the employee so
\ndismissed, later becomes a person who is a workman within
\nan expanded definition brought about by a subsequent
\namendment held to be of retrospective nature, the employer
\nwill be rendered punishable for an offence under Section 25 N
\nand Q as this would amount to the employer being punishable
\nfor an offence, which he could not have envisaged on the date
\nof dismissal.  This would be violative of Article 20(1) of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tIn Burmah Shell’s case (supra) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, we may take notice of
\nthe argument advanced by Mr. Chari on behalf
\nof the Association that, whenever a technical
\nman is employed in an industry, it must be
\nheld that he is employed to do technical work
\nirrespective of the manner in which and the
\noccasions on which the technical knowledge of
\nthat person is actually brought into use. The
\ngeneral proposition put forward by him was
\nthat, if a technical employee even gives advice
\nor guides other workmen, it must be held that
\nhe is doing technical work and not supervisory
\nwork. He elaborated this submission by urging
\nthat, if we hold the supervisory work done by a
\ntechnician as not amounting to his being
\nemployed to do technical work, the result
\nwould be that only those persons would be
\nheld to be employed on technical work who
\nactually do manual work themselves.\n<\/p>\n
According to him this would result in making
\nthe word “technical” redundans in the
\ndefinition of ‘workman’ even though it was
\nlater introduced to amplify the scope of the
\ndefinition. We are unable to accept these
\nsubmissions. The argument that, if we hold
\nthat supervisory work done by a technical man
\nis not employment to do technical work, it
\nwould result in only manual work being held
\nto be technical work, is not at all conect. There
\nis a clear distinction between technical work
\nand manual work. Similarly there is a
\ndistinction between employments which ‘are
\nsubstantially for manual duties, and
\nemployments where the principal duties are
\nsupervisory or other type, though incidentally
\ninvolving some manual work. Even though the
\nlaw in India is different from that in England,
\nthe views expressed by Branson, J., in Appeal
\nof Gardner : In re Maschek : In re Tyrrell
\n[1938] 1 All E.R. 20 are helpful, because, there
\nalso, the nature of the work had to be
\nexamined to see whether it was manual work.
\nAs examples of duties different from manual
\nlabour, though incidentally involving manual
\nwork, he mentioned cases where a worker (a) is
\nmainly occupied in clerical or accounting work,
\nor (b) is mainly occupied in supervising the
\nwork of others, or (c) is mainly occupied in
\nmanaging a business or a department, or (d) is
\nmainly engaged in salesmanship, or (e) if the
\nsuccessful execution of his work depends
\nmainly upon the display of taste or
\nimagination or the exercise of some special
\nmental or artistic faculty or the application of
\nscientific knowledge as distinguished from
\nmanual dexterity. Another helpful illustration
\ngiven by him of the contrast between the two
\ntypes of cases was in the following words :-\n<\/p>\n
“If one finds a man employed
\nbecause he has the artistic faculties
\nwhich will enable him to produce
\nsomething wanted in the shape of a
\ncreation of his own, then obviously,
\nalthough it involves a good deal of
\nmanual labour, he is employed in
\norder that the employer may get the
\nbenefit of his creative faculty.”\n<\/p>\n
The example (e), given above, very
\nappropriately applies to the case of a person
\nemployed to do technical work. His work
\ndepends upon special mental training or
\nscientific or technical knowledge. If the man is
\nemployed because he possesses such faculties
\nand they enable him to produce something as
\na creation of his own, he will have to be held to
\nbe employed on technical work, even though,
\nin carrying out that work, he may have to go
\nthrough a lot of manual labour. If, on the other
\nhand, he is merely employed in supervising the
\nwork of others, the fact that, for the purpose of
\nproper supervision, he is required to have
\ntechnical knowledge will not convert his
\nsupervisory work into technical work. The
\nwork of giving advice and guidance cannot be
\nheld to be an employment to do technical
\nwork.”\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIn Hussain Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron & Steel
\nLabour Board and Anr.<\/a>  (2001 (7) SCC 394) it was held that
\nwhile deciding the status of the person, nature of work is
\nreally relevant. The High Court has referred to the evidence of
\nthe appellant. He had admitted in his evidence that apart from
\nthe advice to the management from time to time, he had other
\nindependent functions such as preparation of draft enquiry
\nreport and conducting domestic enquiries. In his cross-
\nexamination he had further admitted that he had tendered
\nlegal advise in all the four branches and factory of the
\ncompany at Worli. He also admitted that on many occasions
\nhe had drafted management enquiry and it was his duty to
\nhold conferences with the advocates in relation to the
\ncompany’s acts.  He also admitted that as an employee in the
\ncategory of management staff, his conditions of service were
\ndifferent than those provided for the workers of the Company.
\nHe also admitted that leave given to him were not applicable
\nunder the settlement.  He also admitted that he was covered
\nunder the Pension Scheme which did not apply under the
\nsettlement with employees.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tIn view of the aforesaid factual position, the order of the
\nlearned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the
\nDivision Bench do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
\ninterference. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to
\ndistinguish the judgment in the Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd.
\ncase (supra) on the ground that there legal assistant had
\nlicence to practice.  As rightly submitted by learned counsel
\nfor the respondent no distinction was made by this Court on
\nthe only ground that licence and in paragraph 16 the
\ndistinction was made on the basis of duties.  In a recent case
\nin Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash
\nSrivastava and Anr.<\/a> (2007 (1) SCC 491) question of legal
\nassistant was also considered.  In that case the definition
\nbetween occupation and profession was highlighted.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tThe appeals are sans merit, deserve dismissal which we
\ndirect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6543-6544 of 2004 PETITIONER: Mr. C. Gupta RESPONDENT: GlaxoSmithKlin Pharmaceutical Limited DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/05\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4102,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007"},"wordCount":4102,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007","name":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical ... on 25 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T06:01:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-c-gupta-vs-glaxosmithklin-pharmaceutical-on-25-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. C. Gupta vs Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical … on 25 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141836"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141836\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}