JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is challenging the award passed in ID No.102 of 2006, dated 01.07.2011 and also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service together with back wages and all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the 3rd respondent as a Trainee Professional Service Representative on 22.02.1983, and his services were confirmed on 17.04.1984. He was promoted to the post of Field Sales Officer on 08.07.1985. The petitioner was transferred to Khammam and was transferred to Imphal vide order dated 01.07.2002 3. The petitioner was reluctant to join at Imphal. He was informed that it was only for a short period and that he would be retransferred to Guntur. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Tirupati vide order dated 27.04.2004. The petitioner was again transferred to Mumbai vide order dated 01.04.2005. 4. The petitioner did not report to Mumbai as the petitioner felt that the transfer was illegal and without jurisdiction. As the petitioner did not report to his place of posting, the 2nd respondent issued a charge-sheet, dated 01.07.2005. It is submitted that alongwith the charge-sheet an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry proceedings were commenced at Mumbai, and the petitioner attended for a few hearings. The petitioner submitted a medical certificate on 24.01.2006 informing the respondents that the petitioner is unable to attend the enquiry proceedings on account of ill-health. The petitioner was informed that the enquiry proceedings have concluded. The respondents rejected the request of the petitioner for reopening the enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit the explanation within 48 hours. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have passed orders dated 31.03.2006 dismissing the petitioner from service. 5. The petitioner filed ID No.102 of 2006 challenging the termination orders. The Labour Court dismissed the ID on the ground that the petitioner's service could not be brought within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred to as 'Act') defines the Sales Promotion Employee and submits that the Industrial Dispute is maintainable for the services of the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred to as 'Act') defines the Sales Promotion Employee and submits that the Industrial Dispute is maintainable for the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the Sales Promotion Employees as per Section 6 of the said Act. 7. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has not dealt with the preliminary objection of the petitioner and went ahead in deciding the main issue without considering the preliminary objection of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the services of the petitioner cannot be treated as the services of the workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination is illegal and as such the petitioner is entitled for a direction for reinstatement. 9. Sri C.R. Sridharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 virtually online, submits that the petitioner has suppressed several factors and filed the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed filing a civil suit vide OS No.663 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. It is submitted that the petitioner claimed himself as Field Sales Officer and categorically stated in the plaint that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the case. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the memo dated 09.12.2024 and the annexure filed alongwith the memo. Reliance is placed on the cross-examination of the petitioner in the ID.No.102 of 2006, whereby the petitioner does not dispute his designation as Field Sales Officer. It is also submitted that the petitioner claimed himself as a Field Sales Officer before the Civil Court at Tirupati and claimed himself as a workman before the Labour Court. It is submitted that the petitioner claimed exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court, stating that his services do not fall within the definition of the ambit of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner claimed exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court, stating that his services do not fall within the definition of the ambit of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. It is also submitted that for maintaining the Industrial Dispute, the petitioner conveniently erased the earlier stand and claimed himself as a workman before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The petitioner has addressed a letter dated 20.04.2005 requesting to stop his transfer to Mumbai. In the said letter, he admits his role as Supervisory Job. 11. The learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 2(i) of the Act would exempt employees engaged in a Supervisory capacity. That apart it is submitted that for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court Section 2(A) of the ID Act would have to be invoked. It is submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal, claiming himself as a workmen. 12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner filed the ID before the Labour Court without arraigning the company as a party in respondent However, in the writ petition the mistake is rectified. As such, the writ petition is dismissed on this ground alone. 13. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record. Consideration of the Court : 14. The petitioner was appointed on 22.02.1983 as Trainee Professional Service Representative by the 3rd respondent. Perusal of the said order of appointment, it is evident that the terms and conditions of appointment are categorically clear that the transfer of an employee is at the sole discretion of the company. The 2nd respondent, a division of the 3rd respondent, appointed the petitioner to work in the independent territory with Guntur as Headquarters on the basis of the personal problems of the petitioner and issued a letter dated 01.07.1987. The petitioner was promoted as Field Sales Officer vide proceedings dated 04.07.2001, and the terms and conditions of employment are categorically clear. Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of employment makes it unambiguous that the respondent/company may at any time, at its sole discretion, transfer the petitioner to another Headquarters or Region in any other location in India. The petitioner was promoted as Field Sales Officer vide proceedings dated 04.07.2001, and the terms and conditions of employment are categorically clear. Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of employment makes it unambiguous that the respondent/company may at any time, at its sole discretion, transfer the petitioner to another Headquarters or Region in any other location in India. Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of appointment also makes it clear that absence duty for more than 3 days without prior sanction would entitle the respondent/company to terminate the petitioner's services. 15. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has blatantly suppressed the details of a civil suit filed by him and also suppressed the outcome of the suit. It was only during cross-examination of the petitioner in the ID, the facts were elicited from the petitioner. 16. After perusing the plaint copy and the interlocutory application filed in OS No.663 of 2005, it is evident that the petitioner has taken a specific stand that his services cannot be considered as a workmen. On the said premise, the petitioner claimed that the Civil Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. 17. Having withdrawn the suit, the petitioner approached the Labour Court claimed himself as a workman, and conveniently erased the litigation history of the petitioner's issue challenging the orders of dismissal. Such tactics by the petitioner cannot be permitted to sustain. 18. The terms and conditions of employment were signed and accepted by the petitioner. The same would become a matter of private understanding between the petitioner and the respondent/company. Challenging the same in a writ petition would not be permissible. Insofar as maintainability of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner was serving in a Supervisory capacity as claimed by him in his own letter dated 20.04.2005. The Act, 1978 cannot be made applicable for an employee in the role of a Supervisor. The Labour Court has also dealt with the issue appropriately, and no infirmity can be pointed out in the award for this Court to unsettle the well-reasoned award. 19. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 20. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.