JUDGMENT : 1. The petition is filed challenging the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act brought in by the State of Maharashtra in form of Maharashtra Act No. XXII of 1999. By this amending Act the State wanted to include Clause No. 5 in Section 3 as well as to amend Clause 18 of Section 3. Proposed amendments are as under: (a) for Clause (5), the following clause shall be substituted namely: "(5) "employee", in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in Clause (13) of Section 3 of the Bombay Act, and in any other case means a workman as defined in Clause(s) of Section 2 of the Central Act, and a sales promotion employee as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976." (b) for Clause (18), the following clause shall be substituted, namely: "(18) words and expressions used in this Act and not defined therein, but defined in the Bombay Act or as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, shall in relation to an industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act apply, have the meanings assigned to them by the Bombay Act or, as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976; and in any other case, shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Central Act or as the case may be, the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976". 2. The arguments advanced before us is that historically when sales promotion employees were being accepted to be workmen either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Act or the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the State Act, there is no question of treating them as such by way of aforesaid amendment. 3. Secondly it was urged before us that the definition clause of sales promotion employees as contained in the said Sales Promotion Employees Act, hereinafter referred to as "SPE Act". 3. Secondly it was urged before us that the definition clause of sales promotion employees as contained in the said Sales Promotion Employees Act, hereinafter referred to as "SPE Act". Section 2 Clause (d) reads as under: "(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 commission 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." Obviously they are not treated as workmen either under the Central Act or under the State Act. 4. It is an accepted position that in the year 1976, when the SPE Act was enacted there was a controversy whether sales promotion employees will be covered under any of the definitions of Section 2 Clause(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the answer has been in the negative. For this a reference may be made to Sandoz (India) Ltd. case reported in H.R. Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd., etc. etc.,. The learned Judge Justice P.B. SAWANT, speaking for five judges has traced the history of the said Clause(s) of Section 2 of the Central enactment right upto the paragraph 2 from time to time. Thereafter in paragraphs 24, 35, 26 and 37 the learned Judge has given reasons as to why conceptually it is not possible to treat them as workmen and thus, in our opinion, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General as by way of construction. 5. While construing the said Central Act historically when it is found that the concept of the sales promotion employees is not covered, obviously the definition cannot be stretched. 6. 5. While construing the said Central Act historically when it is found that the concept of the sales promotion employees is not covered, obviously the definition cannot be stretched. 6. After framing of the said 1976 Act, when provisions have been made thereunder at the Parliament towards the welfare of the sales promotion employees, by the impugned provisions the State Legislature is extending the benefit of the sales promotion employees but for the amendment as per the State Act of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, obviously benefit will be confined only to the workmen as defined in the Central Act and the State Act. 7. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that power of the State Legislature to amend is conceded. They also concede that by amending Sub-section (2) of Section 6, the State Legislature can include the said sales promotion employees within the purview of the said M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. If this be so, we fail to see the reason for challenge as made by way of this petition. 8. No doubt Article 14 is also relied on to make out the case of discrimination as according to the petitioner the categorisation of workmen with the sales promotion employees will amount to herding two different categories together. 9. For this purpose Bombay High Court Judgment reported in 1986 LIC 318 is relied on. Provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act were before the learned Judges of the Division Bench. By amending the word commercial establishment the legislature wanted to include the office of a lawyer and thereby make it a commercial establishment. 10. Very idea being adherent to underlying purpose of the Act, obviously it was struck down. In absence of said need to quit existing category of commercial establishment and the establishment of lawyer's office etc. sought to be brought in, they were held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16. 11. The concept of workmen under the Central Act leads to different categories of work. By series of judgments of the High Court as well as that of the Apex Court, it has been laid down that they are not covered by the definition of workmen. 11. The concept of workmen under the Central Act leads to different categories of work. By series of judgments of the High Court as well as that of the Apex Court, it has been laid down that they are not covered by the definition of workmen. No doubt to the extent, therefore, the learned Counsel Shri Cama is right in saying that they are not workmen under the Central Act or the State Act, how could they be brought together in that category by the impugned amendment. 12. However, 1976 Legislation of SPE Act clearly gives them the status of those employees who had acquired protection of a Legislation. This power being given to the State Legislature as per the concurrent list and it being by way of welfare legislation, when by impugned amendment the State Legislature is only providing them an access to the machinery provided thereunder with some more rights given under the Act, obviously no case can be made out on the ground of Article 14. 13. M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act by very nature is meant for prevention of unfair labour practice. Practice may be relating to the workmen as per the Central Act or the State Act or an employee known by that name but for a Pharmaceutical company covered by the said 1976 SPE Act. 14. On the contrary in our opinion they are similarly situated so far as the grievance, if any, as to unfair labour practice is concerned. Therefore, there is no question of two different categories being clubbed together leading to violation of Article 14, guarantee to equality. We therefore, reject the petition.