T .P. SRIVASTAVA versus NATIONAL TOBACCO CO. OF INDIA LTD ..

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 11-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T .P. SRIVASTAVA 
v. 
NATIONAL TOBACCO CO. OF INDIA LTD .. 
OCTOBER 11, 1991 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH A.1'lD V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2 (b)-"Workman"- Definition 
of- Section salesman having supervisory duties and such duties which re-
quire creative mind, not workman-Employee covered under the Sales 
C Promotion Employees (Condition of Se111ice) Act, 1976 not workman. 
Labour Law-Tennination of se111ices of-a Section Salesman-Find-
ings of Labour Cowt approved by Supreme Court-16 years old labour dis-
pute--Direction to pay amount equivalent to three years salary. 
The appellant was in the service of the respondent-company as a 
D Section Salesman. He was terminated from service on 12th July, 1973 on 
. the ground that he was on an unauthorised absence since 13th January, 
1973. 
At the instance of the appellant the Government referred to the 
E Labour Court for adjudication the question whether the termination of the 
services of the appellant by the respondent-company was legal and 
justified. and if not to what relief he \vas entitled to. 
The Labour Court held that the appellant was not a "workman" and 
that, therefore, the reference was incompetent but it answered the question 
F · whether the termination itself was illegal in favour of the appellant.· 
G 
H 
The appeal was filed in this Court against the order of the Labour 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Jn order. to come within the definition of "workman" under 
the Industfial Disputes',A~t as it stood in the y~ar 1973 when the 
appellant's service was terminated, the employee has to be under the 
employment to do the work of one of the types of work i.e. manual, skilled 
and/or clerical in nature. [ 475-E] 
472. 
.. 
... 
T. P. SRIVASTAVAv. TOBACCO CO. 
473 
2. The appellant was employed to do canvassing and promoting sales A 
for the company. The duties Involve the suggesting of ways and means to 
lm~rove the sales; a study of the type or status or the public to whom the 
product has to reach and a study of the market condition. He was also 
required to suggest about the publicity in markets and melas, 
advertisement including the need for posters, holders and cinema slides. B 
nese duties do require the imaginative and creative-mind which could not 
be termed as either manual, skilled, unskilled or de~ in nature. The 
supervising work or the other local salesman was onl)' 11 tcidental to his 
main work or canvassing and promotion in the areas' or his operation. 
Such a person cannot be termed as a workman. [;175 F..C) 
3. The Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service)Act, 1976, 
defines "sales promotion employees" as meaning a person employed or 
engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to 
promotion of sales or business or both. [ 476 A-BJ 
c 
4. The object of the enactment and the employees covered by the D 
enactment also go to show that persons who are employed for sales 
• 
-( 
promotion normally would not come within the definition or workmen 
under the Industrial Disputes Act. [476 C-DJ 
. 
S. In view of the fact that a long period of over 16 years bad passed It· E 
would be unjust to leave the appellant without any remedy at this stage. To 
meet the ends of justice, the Company is to pay an amount equivalent to 
tJtree years salary at the rate he was drawing when the appellant's services 
were terminated, in addition to whatever amount they were paying during 
the pendency orthe appeal.,1476 E,FJ 
Bunnali Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company v. Bunnah Shell 
Management and Staff, AIR 1971 SC 922; D.S. Nagraj v. Labour Officer, 
Kamal & Ors., 1973 (42) F.J.R. 400; JJ. Dechane Distributor v. State of 
Kera/a and Ors., 1974-11 LI.J 9, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1681-
G 
A(L) of 1979. 
From the award dated 2.8.1978 of the Additional Labour Court, 
Rajasthan in Reference Case No. ALC - 120 of 1974 . 
V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and Sunil Dogra for the Appellant. 
H 
474 
S,UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 1 S. C. R. 
A 
J.D. Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. RAMASWAMI, J. The appellant who had been in the service of 
· the respondent-company as a Section Salesman was terminated from ser-
B vice. on 12th July, 1973 on the ground that he was on an unauthorised 
· 
absence since 13th January, 1973 and shall be deem,ed to have left the 
company's service of his own account. At the instance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.