Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.02.2003 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The appellant has raised an industrial dispute in respect of alleged termination of his services by the respondent M/s Aushadh Prathisthan, Udaipur w.e.f. 110.1996. According to the appellant, he was engaged as sales man with respondent establishment since 10.04.1973. He was sent for some work on 08.06.1996 to Jaipur and when he returned, he asked for the dearness and travelling allowance but the same were not paid and his services were terminated on 110.1996 and he was further informed that somebody else has been employed in his place. Thus, he claimed that his 23 years services have been terminated without any notice and without any disciplinary proceedings. He raised a dispute that termination of his service was in the violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The respondent-employer denied the claim of the appellant that he was employed since 10.04.1973 as salesman. It was stated that the petitioner-appellant was not engaged as salesman or in any other capacity. It was further stated that the respondents sales work is being conducted by regularly appointed agents on commission basis. It was stated that the appellant has done some work in August and September, 1995 as commission agent for which his amount of commission was settled on 11.09.1995. It was specifically stated that after September, 1995 he was not employed as a regular sales agent. It is stated that according to the periodical urgent requirement some work was taken for which amount was paid. It was pointed out that for the period of June 1996 to October 1996, which is part of the period to which present dispute relates, the appellant has raised a claim against M/s Jagriti Herbal also for recovery of his wages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per month. 5. The appellant in his statement has further admitted that his services were terminated in 1984 but he was re-employed after conciliation proceedings. However, the learned Labour Court observed that no evidence has been placed on record about re-employment after 1984 and from the aforesaid fact, it was concluded that no case for continuous service w.e.f. 1973 was made out. 5. The appellant in his statement has further admitted that his services were terminated in 1984 but he was re-employed after conciliation proceedings. However, the learned Labour Court observed that no evidence has been placed on record about re-employment after 1984 and from the aforesaid fact, it was concluded that no case for continuous service w.e.f. 1973 was made out. The learned Labour Court referred to the application made by the petitioner-appellant dated 011.1995 in which he clearly stated that if he is now employed, he will do certain work and has expected the commission for the work done by him between 30% to 36% but he hastened to add that effective rate of commission may be treated as 30%. He further stated that he may be paid fixed amount for the time being and after his appointment and approval, he may be given status of agent. He has further demanded the salary of Rs. 1500/-per month with travelling allowances and daily allowance for the travelling for which he prayed Rs. 100/-per day. 6. Relying on this statement of the petitioner-appellant, it was found by the learned Judge, Labour Court that this application goes to show that at least prior to 011.1995 the claimant was not employee of the respondent establishment. Further relying on the claim produced by the claimant against M/s Jagriti Herbs Pvt. Ltd. for the month of June 1996 to October 1996 the labour Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is not reliable. He cannot be deemed to be in employment of the two employers at the same time for the same period. Thus, even from April 1995, if employment is deemed to have been offered to him, he did not continue after June 1996 which does not show employment of one year continuous duration, which could entitle him to get the benefit under Section 25-F. 7. In these circumstances, finding that the claimant was not in the employment of the respondent-establishment for continuous period of one year as on the alleged date, the termination of services cannot be faulted with and the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 8. As a result of the aforesaid finding, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Labour Court. 9. 8. As a result of the aforesaid finding, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Labour Court. 9. When the award was challenged by the appellant, the learned Single Judge founded his conclusion on two grounds; firstly that the finding recorded by the Judge, Labour Court is not perverse and not liable to be interfered under the writ jurisdiction, secondly, the learned Single Judge also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.P. Srivastava vs. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., 1992 (1) SCC 281 and H.R. Adyanthaya etc. vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc., AIR 1994 SC 2608 in which it was held that a medical representative and sales representative cannot be a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged before us that the view taken by the learned Single Jude on the basis of Adyanthayas case that the sales representative is not a workman is not well founded inasmuch as two decisions referred to above are prior to amendment in Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 which provided that under Section 6(2) the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 were applied to the Sales Promotion Employees within the meaning of the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act and, therefore, the aforesaid two Judgment s are not applicable to the present case. 11. The learned Counsel relied on Bench decision of this Court in Rajasthan Medical & Sales Representatives Union vs. M/s Industrial Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (4) WLC 473 . 12. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench is distinguishable on the facts because termination order in the aforesaid case was prior to the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act came into force. 13. After having carefully considered the decision of this Court and of Adyanthayas case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench perhaps requires reconsideration. 14. The close reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Adyanthayas case reveals that the purported ratio narrated in the Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Unions case was the contention raised by the sales representatives. 14. The close reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Adyanthayas case reveals that the purported ratio narrated in the Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Unions case was the contention raised by the sales representatives. In fact, the ratio of the decision can be founded in consideration of Civil Appeal No. 818/92 by the Supreme Court which related to raising of industrial dispute about the unfair labour practices under the trade union and termination of appellant in 1971 in respect of cause of action which has arisen after 16.04.1988 and after amendment in the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 to which we have referred to above while other applications were dismissed by the Supreme Court inter alia on the ground that they had arisen prior to amendment brought in definition under Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 and the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 do not govern, was decided on its own finding that unless the salesman falls within the definition of ID Act. 15. Be that as it may since we are of the opinion that this appeal must fail on the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. Since, the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court clinches that the appellant was not in service of respondent establishment for the requisite duration to bring him within the ambit of provisions relating to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the claim was rightly rejected by the Labour Court and did not call for any interference. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.