M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 10th Novr. , 1982, made by the Labour Court Hubli, in Reference no. 7811978. The reference was to the effect as to whether the Managment was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner, a medical representative, with effect from 19. 4. 1977, by the Management of M s Pharmed p. Ltd. , the respondent before the Labour court. In these proceedings, it is the first respondent and the Presiding officer of the Labour Court is the second respondent. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent before the labour Court had raised several questions, out of which, the second of them, was whether the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference as pleaded before it and the 4th question was whether the claimant was not a workman as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act ). The Labour Court tried out of the five issues raised, leading to the two questions cited above as preliminary issuep and held against the petitioner. In other wordls, the reference was held to be bad because the petitioner was not a workman. By way of caution the 5th issue was also raised and found that the domestic enquiry held was fair and proper. In this writ petition, essentially, the arguments have been heard only in respect of the question whether the petitioner was a sales promotion employee or not within the meaning of the term as defined in the Sales Promotion Emplovees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as that question has the effect of determining the question of jurisdiction as well. ( 3 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the salary andl allowances drawn by the petitioner for the relevant period which was in excess of Rs. 9,000 he was not a 'workman' as can be seen, from the; very language of the definition. ( 3 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the salary andl allowances drawn by the petitioner for the relevant period which was in excess of Rs. 9,000 he was not a 'workman' as can be seen, from the; very language of the definition. Sec. (2) (d) of the Act reads as follows :"2 (d) " Sales promotion employee" means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sales or business, or both, and - (i) Who draws wages (being wages, not including any commission) not exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees per mensem ; or (ii) Who had drawn, wages (being wages, including commission) or commmission only, in either case, not exceeding nine thousand rupees in the aggregate in the twelve, months immediately preceding the month in which this Act applies to such establishment and continues to draw such wages or commission, in the aggregate, not exceeding the amount aforesaid in a year. but does not include any such person who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity ;" ( 4 ) BUT the claim of the peititinoer was that he is a 'workman' answering to the description which flows from the definition of 'sales Promotion Employee' as defined in the Act. ( 5 ) IT is by virtue of that that a sales representative drawing less than Rs. 750 per mensem as wages becomes competent to raise and maintain a dispute before the Labour Court or the tribunal or the Board as the case may be in terms of Sec. 6 (2) of the Act. ( 6 ) THE respondent Management took up the contention that the petitioner hadi drawn more than Rs. 750 per mensem as wages and therefore he could not be deemed to be a sales representative within the meaning of that term as contained in the Special Act of 1976, which enabled the petitioner to raise a dispute under the Act. The petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs. 555 as his salary, but his service conditions provided two types of allowances in addition to the salary. They were : (1) head Quarters allowance and (2) Out-station allowance. The petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs. 555 as his salary, but his service conditions provided two types of allowances in addition to the salary. They were : (1) head Quarters allowance and (2) Out-station allowance. In the first mentioned allowance, the petitioner was entitled to draw Rs 10 per day at the place where he was posted by the, Company and which town or city was treated as headquarters. In other words, if the petitioner performed his work in the headquarters all the 30 days in the month, he would get Rs. 300 in excess of his salary which was, admittedly rs. 555. In the event of his working out-side the headquarters in the course of his duties, he was entitled to draw a sum of Rs. 14 per day on a Sunday or a holiday and at Rs. 18 on other working days. In other words if one were to assume that he worked for 15 days at the, head-quarters his total emoluments for the month would be Rs. 555 plus Rs. 120 plus Rs. 262 or a little more or a little less depending on the number of holidays in that 15 days. If these two allowances are treated as part of his wages, then the conclusion reached by the Labour court that he was not a sales representative as defined in the Act would be correct. But if they are severable from wages as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then the labour Court would be in error. Clause (e) of Sec. 2 of the Act reads as follows :"2 (e) all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and definedm, in the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. (14 of 1947) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. "therefore, in deciding the merits of this case, one has to look at the definition of 'wages' in, the I. D. Act 'wages' as defined in clause (rr) of sec. (14 of 1947) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. "therefore, in deciding the merits of this case, one has to look at the definition of 'wages' in, the I. D. Act 'wages' as defined in clause (rr) of sec. 2 of the I. D. Act read as follows :"2 (rr) "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or work done in such employment, and includes - (i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to ; (ii) the value, of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any sqrvice or of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles ; (iii) any travelling concession ; but does not include - a) any bonus ; b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force ; c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service ;" from the above it is clear that wages are classified into two groups, that which forms wages in accordance with sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the I. D' Act and specifically bonus, contribution by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or gratuity payable on termination fall into the other group not being wages. In clause (i) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the, I. D. Act the terms employed are 'such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to'. Therefore, the question is whether the head-quarters allowance and out-station allowance fall into the ambit of the expression 'such allowances ? what was contended before the labour Court and what has been contended before me now in these proceedings is that these are meant for out of pocket expenses of the sales representative to be incurred in the discharge of his duties and therefore do not form part of his wages. In this behalf, some evidence appears to have been led before the Labour Court. In this behalf, some evidence appears to have been led before the Labour Court. Reliance was placed on some of the exhibits which were pro-forma forms filed by the sales representative with the employer claiming certain expenses incurred both at the head quarters town as well as outside the head-quarters town. The prqforma of that kind has been brought to my notice in these proceedings as well. It is seen therefrom that the form provides for the station at which the sales representative had worked on a given date, the mode of travel from place to place or from one town to another, the charges therefor, the allowance paid on day basis in terms of the conditions of employment regarding out-station and head-quarters allowance and other incidental expences such as postage, telegram and telephone, etc. The column meant for the daily allowance remains constant at the rate specified in the appointment order depending on whether the sales representative was at the head quarters or out-side the head quarters. The, argument advanced was that the amount claimed by the sales representative in accor dance with that form was reimbursable by the employer and therefore it could not form part of his wages, the wages being constant at Rs. 555 per mensum. The difficulty in accepting that argument is that for the reasons already given it spells out these as headquarters allowance and out-station allowance and therefore his monthly emoluments would depend entirely on the number of days he worked either at the head-quarters or out-side the headquarters notwithstanding the other expenditure which he can recoup from his employer for which purpose alone the form is meant. This is more or less the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court. I am in full agreement with that reasoning. " ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Sri K. Subba Rao brought to my notice the decision of the supreme Court in the case of D. R. Jerry vs. Union of India (1) in which the supreme Court had occasion to consider whether running allowance formed part of the wages of the employee in the Indian Railways. Briefly stated the facts of that case were that the appellant therein was a dismissed employee of the Indian Railways who was subsequently re-instated after his dismissal was held to be illegal. For the period he suffered dismissal, he was ordered to be paid backwages. Briefly stated the facts of that case were that the appellant therein was a dismissed employee of the Indian Railways who was subsequently re-instated after his dismissal was held to be illegal. For the period he suffered dismissal, he was ordered to be paid backwages. In claiming backwages he included the running allowance to which he would have been entitled to had he continued in the employment of the Railway. In deciding that question whether the running allowance under Rules 510, 2003 and 2044 of the Rly. Establishment code, was wages, the Sup. Court came to the conclusion that running allowance was not part of the wages. From what is stated in the aforementioned decision at para 23 it is clear that running allowance is very much akin to or similar to travelling allowance. It has been observed that travelling allowance or running allowance is allowable only if the officer has travelled and not otherwise. In other words, having regard, to the conditions of service in that case it was held that travelling allowance did not form part of the wages, when the person claiming that allowance had not actually travelled. On the other hand, in the definition of 'wages' from the language of sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the I. D. Act, travelling concessions which can be quantified in terms of money are also wages. If that is borne in mind, in the instant case, petitioner will get his allowance either at the rate prescribed for headquarters or out-side head-quarters at the end of the month and this squarely falls into the group mentioned in clause (i) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme court in Jerry's case has no relevance to the point at issue here. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, Shri K. Subba Rao relied upon the decision of the Andhra pradesh High Court [shriram Refrigation industries Ltd. , Hyderabad vs. Industrial Tribunal (2) ]. In that case, the expression conveyance allowance fell for consideration. The learned single Judge of that Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the language employed in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the I. D. Act, conveyance allowance did not fall into the category under those clauses and therefore did not form part of the wages. That may be so. The learned single Judge of that Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the language employed in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 2 (rr) of the I. D. Act, conveyance allowance did not fall into the category under those clauses and therefore did not form part of the wages. That may be so. It will depend upon the benefit enjoyed by the claimant in terms of his contract as to whether a travelling concession forms or does not form part of the wages. ( 9 ) I have already pointed out, wherever the petitionr worked he would stilll be entitled to a daily allowance which cannot be denied to be an allowance and would draw it at the end of the month irrespective, of the quantum of work he turned out or the commission that he may or he may not earn in the course of his employment. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the labour Court is correct and it was established that he drew more than rs. 750 per mensem. Therefore, it was inevitable for the Labour Court to treat the reference as bad because the petitioner was not a sales representative within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act. ( 10 ) IT is unnecessary to go into the other questions decided by the Labour court, as the petitioner fails on the question now discussed above and held against him. This writ petition is rejected without issuing rule. --- *** --- .