Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1239 (PAT)

Raptakos, Brett v. @ Co. Ltd. Company

2014-12-16

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Udai Shankar Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The State is being represented by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay. 3. Both the aforesaid applications are heard together and a common order is being passed. 4. One Anil Sinha, who was working as Medical Representative of the M/s Raptakos, Brett & Company Ltd., a Drug Manufacturing Company, was transferred to Ahmedabad. He represented against such transfer to the authorities which went unheeded. He approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Saharsa. 5. The prosecution report reveals that the management of the company assured that the order of transfer would be annulled. This did not happen. On the contrary, despite the fact that the matter was taken note of by the Labour Department, the services of Anil Sinha was terminated. This, as alleged by the opposite party no. 2, led to commission of offence under Sections 33A and 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. On the basis of a prosecution report with such allegation, learned Court below vide order dated 04.10.2004 took cognizance under Section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners, who are the company, the Director and the General Manager of the Company respectively assailed such order of cognizance before the Revisional Court namely, Sessions Judge. The order of cognizance stood confirmed by the revisional order dated 05.12.2007. That order is also under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners very pithily putforth only one submission, namely, that a Medical Representative is not a “workman” under the definition of workmen provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the petitioners to be prosecuted for any offence much less under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act. 8. Shorn of all details with respect to the facts of the case, Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate refers to the case of H.R. Adyanthaya & Others Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737 and submitted that a Medical Representative would not come under the category of workman. A Medical Representative with his salary of more than Rs. 750 per month and Rs. 9,000/- per annum would also not qualify to become a workmen under the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (condition of service) Act, 1976. 9. The very basis of the prosecution of the petitioners is therefore, misdirected and misconceived. A Medical Representative with his salary of more than Rs. 750 per month and Rs. 9,000/- per annum would also not qualify to become a workmen under the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (condition of service) Act, 1976. 9. The very basis of the prosecution of the petitioners is therefore, misdirected and misconceived. The order taking cognizance as well as the revisional order do not stand in the eye of law and accordingly both are set aside. 10. Both the applications are allowed. ?