It has engaged the services of employees for the purpose of marketing its manufactured products.
Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the writ appeal held that the appellate authorities orders were in order.
The appellant in each case is involved in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.
768 of 2004, 767 of 2004 and 1498 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The employees invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court challenging the orders of termination but later on they withdrew them and moved the authority under the Act along with, in some cases, companydonation for delay in approaching the Authorities companycerned.
Writ Petitions filed and writ appeals preferred were rejected.
The orders of the Authorities under the Shops Act directing the reinstatement of the employees into service together with back wages which were challenged in the writ petitions came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge.
Several writ petitions filed were dismissed by learned Single Judge of the High Court and therefore, writ appeals were filed.
Notwithstanding serious objections raised by the employer, the companycerned Authority companydoned the delay.
The companypetent authority rejected the objections raised by the employer.
In the present appeals the stand of the appellants was that the authority under the Shops Act had numberjurisdiction to entertain the so called appeals preferred by the employees as the service companyditions of the employer were governed and regulated by the provisions of the Act which is a special enactment.
Charge sheets were issued against the companycerned employees and after holding inquiries, services of the employees were terminated.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
In companymon parlance the employees appointed by the pharmaceuticals companypanies are known as medical representatives.
The further question was whether the Authorities companystituted under the Shops Act have numberjurisdiction to entertain any appeal preferred by the sales promotion employees challenging action of the employees in terminating their services.
By the impugned judgment several writ appeals and writ petitions, filed by the appellants, were dismissed.
