Telangana High Court
WP/21503/1999 of Masinath Patwary Vs The F.D.C. Limited Mumbai (Head Office) on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21503 of 1999 Between: Masinath Patwary … Petitioner AND The F.D.C.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.21503 of 1999
Between:
Masinath Patwary
… Petitioner
AND
The F.D.C. Limited,Mumbai (Head office), rep., by GPAT. Sankar, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad,& others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : None
Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2: Smt. Uma Devi This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.21503 of 1999
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to setaside order dated 23.09.1998 passed in I.A.No.149 of 1998 inI.D.No.297 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman-cum-PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur,respondent No.3 herein.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.
Heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for respondentNos.1 and 2.
The petitioner was a medical representative of respondentNos.1 and 2 company. He raised industrial dispute, which wasregistered as I.D.No.297 of 1997 by respondent No.3, challenginghis termination. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.149 of 1998raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said I.D.on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definitionof ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent No.3, after entertaining thesaid application and adjudicating the same on merits, held that thepetitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’.
A perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition showsthat in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is not aworkman, respondent No.3 relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and others vs. Sandoz India Limited and others[[1]], wherein it was categorically held that the medicalrepresentatives are not workmen within the definition of Section2(s) of the Act.
No one is present in the Court to point out the error in thefinding rendered by respondent No.3. As the impugned order ispassed following the law declared by the Supreme Court, I do notfind any reason to interfere with such an order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition,WPMP.No.26964 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief isalso dismissed.
Date: 30.12.2008ES
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
[1]AIR 1994 SC 2608