JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Jeetesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 and Sri Amar Nath Tripathi for respondent No.1-workman. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is against the award dated 28.11.2021 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow whereby he has allowed the claim of respondent No.1 and has held him to be in continuous service from 28.12.2003 on which date his services were illegally terminated and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to respondent No.1 and also back wages from the date of his termination i.e. 28.12.2003 till the date of his death i.e. 22.1.2020 at the rate of 50 percent of his salary. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs in India. It has also been stated that they had engaged the services of respondent No.1 as a medical representative by means of appointment order dated 16.10.1990, initially on probation and subsequently his services were confirmed with effect from 1.5.1991. The duties of Respondent No.1 while working as a medical representative included the work of canvassing for promoting sales of the products, carrying samples of medicines and other incidental products of the petitioner company to various agencies and doctors for enhancement of their sales. After expiry of sometime of his working with opposite party No.1 started indulging in various acts of misconducts like submitting false reports, misusing the excess promotional materials, working less on the schedule days and availed unauthorized leaves without prior information for which he was given warning letters. Subsequently the respondent No.1 started indulging in illegal acts, committed grave misconduct by starting manufacturing and marketing of fake and spurious drugs, medicines and other medical products. It is in aforesaid circumstances that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and he was also taken into custody on 31.12.2003 but after sometime he was enlarged on bail. Subsequently the respondent No.1 started indulging in illegal acts, committed grave misconduct by starting manufacturing and marketing of fake and spurious drugs, medicines and other medical products. It is in aforesaid circumstances that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and he was also taken into custody on 31.12.2003 but after sometime he was enlarged on bail. When respondent No.1 was taken into custody a decision was taken by the petitioner to dispense with his services and accordingly in exercise of the powers under clause 13 of the appointment letter his services were terminated by the giving him one month's salary in lieu of the notice. 4. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner had raised industrial dispute in which initially conciliation proceedings were initiated but it resulted in failure and accordingly reference was made to Labour Court to decide the validity of his termination order dated 31.12.2003 and also to the reliefs to which he was entitled to. The petitioner was put to notice in the said proceedings. They had put in appearance and also opposed the claim preferred by respondent No.1. It is after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties and lead evidence in support of their contentions that the labour court had decided the said case on 18.11.2021. 5. The labour court had duly considered the facts as stated by the workman who had also supported his case by oral and documentary evidence. It was stated that various domestic inquiries were initiated against the workman for his alleged misconduct and instead of concluding the said proceedings the petitioner had terminated his services by giving notice simplicitor in lieu of one month's wages. The labour court was of the considered view that considering various complaints of misconduct levelled against the workman which were of serious nature and pertaining to manufacturing spurious drugs it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have initiated domestic inquiry and should have given due opportunity to the workman before terminating his services but instead of conducting domestic inquiry they proceeded to terminate his services by giving one month's notice simplicitor. It is in aforesaid circumstances, that the Labour Court was of the view that the petitioner had indulge in unfair labour practice and workman had not been given due opportunity of hearing and in the circumstances of the present case were serious allegations were levelled against him it was incumbent upon them to have conducted a domestic before proceeding to terminate his services, and accordingly the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected and the claim was allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by labour court dated 18.11.2021 has made only solitary submission that the labour court did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by opposite party No.1 in the present case. He submits that opposite party No.1 was, in fact, working on the post of Medical Representative and accordingly he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the labour court was denuded of any authority or jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute and decide the same. He submits that even according the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Services) Act, 1976 wherein Section 2 (d) definition of Sales Promotion Employees has been provided for would not confer the status of workman on the respondent no.1. Provision of Section 6 (7) of the said Act of 1976 provides that Sales Promotion Employees would be deemed to be a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, but respondent no.1 was not covered within the definition of sales promotion employee and consequently could not be considered to be workman and, therefore, submitted that the labour court at the very outset should have dismissed the said reference. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case H.R. Adyanthaya and ohter VS. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 737. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case H.R. Adyanthaya and ohter VS. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 737. It was further stated that the petitioner weas receiving Rs.4000/- a month as salary which was more than the threshold limit of Rs.1600/- per month provided for under Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1976 and consequently respondent no.1 would not fall within the meaning of Sales Promotion Employees and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 (7) would not be applicable to him and accordingly he should not have been deemed to be a workman and, hence, is claim should have been dismissed on this ground alone. 8. The arguments of the petitioner has forcefully been opposed by counsel for respondent No.1. He submits that there is no dispute that the provisions of Section 6(7) of the Act of 1976 would apply in the case of the petitioner and this aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Lucknow and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All.4247 where this Court has held that Sales Promotion Employees would be covered under the definition of Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1976 and would be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and, hence, the dispute in the present case would be cognizable by the labour court. He further submits that the objections raised by the petitioner in the present case were never raised before the labour court and accordingly no finding has been returned to the specific issue raised by the petitioner as argued in the present case and, hence, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not entertain the plea for the first time which was not raised before the labour court and consequently prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the matter in the present case in as much as respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner on the post of medical representative initially on probation consequently his services were confirmed. 9. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the matter in the present case in as much as respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner on the post of medical representative initially on probation consequently his services were confirmed. There were numerous allegations against respondent No.1, who according to the petitioner had indulged in various acts of misconduct and also manufacturing of fake and spurious drugs, medicines and other medical products. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against respondent No.1 due to which he was taken into custody and when he was taken into custody it seems that decision was taken by the petitioners to dispense with his services and accordingly by means of order dated 31.12.2003 his services were terminated by giving one month's notice simplicitor along with a cheque of Rs.4000/-. 11. Considering the arguments of the petitioner there is no dispute that Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976 respondent No.1 would be deemed to be a workman within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the sake of convenience Section 6(2) of the said Act is quoted hereunder:- 6 (2) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales promotion employee shall be deemed to include a sales promotion employee who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute. 12. A perusal of the aforesaid definition would indicate that firstly a person should be a sales promotion employee and in case he fulfills all the conditions of sales promotion employees which are provided under Section 2(3) he would be deemed to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per the definition of sales promotion employees one of the main conditions is that he should not be receiving more than Rs.1600/- per month. This aspect of the matter which has been canvassed before this Court to suggest that respondent No.1 was, in fact, receiving more than Rs.1600/- per month and, therefore, he was not covered within the definition of sales promotion employee and, therefore, he was not a workman as per Section 6(2) of the Act of 1976. The only material in support his contentions is a copy of the notice given to respondent No.1 along with a cheque of Rs.4000/- which according to the petitioner is clearly demonstrative of the fact that respondent No.1 was being given Rs.4000/- per month as salary but there is no evidence apart from this document which has been filed by the petitioner either before the labour court or before this Court. 13. Before we proceed to examine the contention of the petitioner, it is relevant to observe that even before the labour court the petitioner did not file either the appointment letter or the conditions of services governing the services of respondent No.1. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have demonstrated the quantum of wages being given to respondent No.1 in case he wished to canvass the fact that the respondent no.1was not a sale promotion employee as per the definition of Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1947. Question of wages being given to the workman is a question of fact and ought to have been proved before the labour court before the benefit of the same to be given to the petitioners. Merely because a cheque of Rs.4000/- was given in lieu of the notice period cannot be determinative of the fact that the employee was given Rs.4000/-per month as salary. It is very much possible that the amount may have included other dues which may be payable to the workman to which he may have been legally entitled. In the written statement filed before the labour court there is no averment with regard to terms and conditions of services of the workman or any statement or documents pertaining to the wages received by him accordingly no benefit of this fact can be granted to the petitioner in the writ proceedings wherein the award of the labour court has been assailed. We have also noticed that the Tribunal has observed that the petitioner despite passing of the appropriate orders failed to produce documents pertaining to the service of the petitioner. We have also noticed that the Tribunal has observed that the petitioner despite passing of the appropriate orders failed to produce documents pertaining to the service of the petitioner. It was necessary for the petitioner to have raised this objection before the labour court and also produced cogent evidence along with documents and other material to canvass the issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the labour court. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and there is no material available on record from which this Court for the first time can determine respondent No.1 as workman and was being paid less than Rs.1600/- per month. Accordingly, the question of jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner has been dealt with adequately by the labour court including the fact that they have also considered the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, but the issue raised by the respondents with regard to the fact that the respondent No.1 was not a sales promotion employee as was receiving less than Rs.1600 per month was never pleaded before the labour court and, hence, no finding in this regard has been returned, and we also do not find any error in the findings recorded by the labour court and also notice that they had adequate opportunity to produce the service record of the workman which would have included the wages being paid to him, but deliberately failed to produce the record despite specific direction of the Tribunal and, therefore, at this stage, they cannot be given any benefit of their default. 15. This Court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited only to judicially review and examine whether the award of the labour court has been passed within its jurisdiction. This Court would not proceed to re-appreciate the evidence as if it were deciding the appeal against the award of the labour court and accordingly in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has perused the award as well as considered the arguments raised by the parties and finds that there is no infirmity in the award of the labour court. The arguments of the petitioner as canvassed before this Court are bereft of merits and accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed.