JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Since the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in (H.R. Adyanthaya etc.etc. v. Sandoz (India) Limited etc.etc.)1, (1994)II C.L.R. 552, I did not think it fit to adjourn the case in the absence of the counsel for the Maharashtra Sales Medical Representatives Association (Vidarbha Unit) and Pandurang Chatterjeerao Khunyakari, (Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 857 of 89 and respondents in Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88). I have heard Mr. S.V. Golwalkar, the learned Counsel for the ESKAYER Limited (for short, the employer). 2. The employer in Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88 has challenged the order of the Industrial Court passed on 22-4-1988 whereby the Industrial Court maintained the order passed by the Labour Court, Amravati to the extent of reinstatement of complainant on his former post and award of 50% of back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In the other Writ Petition No. 857 of 89, the Maharashtra Sales Medical Representatives Association (Vidarbha Unit), Nagpur (for short, the Union) and Pandurang Chatterjeerao Khunyakari (for short, the employee) have challenged the very order passed by the Industrial Court on 22-4-1988 whereby only 50% of back-wages were allowed after reinstatement of the employee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the employee Pandurang was employed as Medical Representative by the employer on 1-12-1971. The basic salary of the employee as on 1-4-1980 was Rs. 1035/- per month. The services of the employee were sought to be terminated by the order dated 23-10-1980. The said order of termination was challenged by the employee before the Labour Court , Akola under section 5 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971). The claim of the employee was contested by the employer and objection was raised that employee was not "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently not an "employees" under section 3(5) of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute about the termination of employee Pandurang Chatterjeerao Khunyakari. The Labour Court held the enquiry and by its award dated 6-11-1987 held that the dismissal of the employee was not just and proper and the order of termination was unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Unfair Labour Practices Act and, therefore directed the employer to reinstate the employee within 15 days from the date of passing of the order. However, no back wages were awarded by the Labour Court. 4. Both the employer and the employee were dissatisfied with the award passed by the Labour Court, Amravati and two separate revision applications came to be filed and the Industrial Court, Amravati in revisions, by its order dated 22-4-1988 partly allowed the revision application of the employee and directed 50% of the payment of back-wages to the employee and rest of the order passed by the Labour Court was maintained. As stated above, the said order is under challenge in the aforesaid two writ petitions. 5. In H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Limited, (cited supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the medical representative is not the "workman" within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, was not an "employee" within the meaning of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1947 and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to the medical representatives. The Apex Court has held that the complaint by such employee was not maintainable. 6. In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court that the medical representative is not the "workman" and complaint by such employee was not maintainable, the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 22-4-1988 directing the reinstatement of the employee and payment of 50% of back-wages is liable to be set aside and the employee is held to be not entitled to any relief in the complaint filed by him before the Labour Court challenging his termination order dated 23-10-1980 since he was not the "workman". 7. Mr. Golwalkar, the learned Counsel for the employer has, however, fairly and candidly submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30-6-1988, the employer deposited 50% of the back-wages with the Labour Court, Amravati and in case the said amount has been withdrawn by the employee, his client would not seek refund of the said amount. 7. Mr. Golwalkar, the learned Counsel for the employer has, however, fairly and candidly submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30-6-1988, the employer deposited 50% of the back-wages with the Labour Court, Amravati and in case the said amount has been withdrawn by the employee, his client would not seek refund of the said amount. However, in case the amount deposited by the employer pursuant to this Courts order dated 30-6-1988 has not been withdrawn by the employee, it would be open to the employee to withdraw the said amount from the Labour Court, Amravati. 8. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88 is allowed and the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati on 22-4-1988 and the award passed by the Labour Court, Amravati on 6-11-1986 are quashed and set aside against the employer. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition No. 857 of 89 filed by the Union and the employee does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is made absolute in Writ Petition No. 1234 of 88. Rule is discharged in Writ Petition No. 857 of 89. No order as to costs in both the writ petitions. *****