LexSPIC PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION versus AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 48(1) OF A.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
SPIC PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION
v.
AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 48(1) OF A.P. AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
[DR. ARlJlT PASAYA T AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
labour Law:
Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976:
Medical representatives-Dismissal from service-Redressal of
grievances-Forum-Held, on facts, forums created under ID Act can more
effectively deal with the issues raised-In peculiar circumstances of the case,
State Governments concerned directed to make reference to appropriate
D forums under ID Act-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Andhra Pradesh Shops
and Establishments Act, 1988.
Appellants, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, terminated the
services of their employees, popularly known as medical representatives. The
'!'
employees approached the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops
E and Establishments Act, 1988. Besides contesting the appeals on merits, the
employers contended that in view of the Sales Promotion Employees
(Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, only the Labour Court under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 had jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdiction of the
appellate authority under the Shops Act was ousted. The appellate aut.hority
rejected the contentions of the employers and directed reinstatement of the
F employees with back wages. Having remained unsuccessful in writ petitions
as also in writ appeals before the High Court, the employers filed the appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
G on the facts of the case can more effectively deal with the issues raised. It is
not to be understood that this Court has said that the appellate authorities
under the Shops Act do not have jurisdiction. This Court is not really deciding_
the issue as to whether there was exclusion of the jurisdiction of authorities
H
428
y
•
-
SPIC PllAR~IACEUTICALS DIVISION"· AL:THORITY UNDER SEC 48(1) OF AP. {PASAYAT. J)
429
under the Shops Act because it specifically provided that the forum under the A
ID Act can be approached. !Para 511431-E-GI
1.2. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case and the order for reference by the State Government is
being made in view of the special features involved. Normally it is for the State
Government to decide whether reference is to be made but, in peculiar B
circumstances and in view of the conceded position by the counsel for the
parties that the industrial disputes do exist, the concerned State Governments
are directed to refer the dispute to the forum under the ID Act for adjudication
as directed. [Para 511431-H; 432-A-BI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 766 of2004.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 3.9.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 22735 of2001.
WITH
(Civil Appeal Nos. 768 of2004, 767 of2004 and 1498 of2004.)
'I
S. Ganesh, B. Rana, Vikrant Rana, Amaya Singh, Sunanda Yanglem (for
Mis. S.S. Rana & Co.) Kuldeep Parihar, H.S. Parihar, S.V./ Deshpande for the
c
D
Appellant.
E
R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, Vijay Kumar,
D. Mahesh Babu, K.C. Shastri, B. Partha Sarthy, R.Y. Kameshwaran, D. Bharathi
Reddy, P. Yinay Kumar and Sneha Bhaskaran for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality
of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. By the impugned judgment several writ appeals and writ petitions, filed
F
by the appellants, were dismissed. The core question that arose for
consideration in the cases before the High Court was whether the provisions G
of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (in short the
'Act') oust the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Andhra
Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (in short the 'Shops Act') and
consequently the Authorities under the Shops Act are excluded from
entertaining appeals preferred by the aggrieved sales promotion employees H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A challenging the termination of their services. The further question was whether
the Authorities constituted under the Shops Act have no jurisdiction to
entertain any appeal preferred by the sales promotion employees challenging
action of the employees in terminating their services. Several writ petitions
fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.