The respondent challenged this Award before the Punjab Haryana High Court and by its judgment dated 12.08.1996, the High Court set aside the Award and remanded the case back to the Labour Court for deciding the matter afresh.
On the basis of the above findings, the services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 18.6.1990.
In the daily report of 31st of August, 1989, the respondent indicated that he had visited one Dr. R. Singla at Ropar.
Submission of false daily reports or irregularity in submission of daily reports.
This order was challenged by the respondent in the departmental appeal on 26.6.1990 but the appeal was dismissed.
On 22.12.1997, the Labour Court decided another preliminary issue which was to the effect whether a fair and proper enquiry was held and it was held that fair and proper enquiry was number held and the termination order passed by the appellant was wholly illegal and void as it was found by the Labour Court that the respondent, in spite of his request, was number allowed the assistance of an advocate.
One of the duties of the respondent was to submit a daily report of the visits made by him specifying the persons visited and the samples or promotional materials distributed by him.
It was further found that the termination order was passed by an authority who was number the appointing authority of the respondent and, therefore, it was bad.
The appellant, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No.1010 of 1998 in the Punjab Haryana High Court but the High Court by its judgment dated 23.05.1998 dismissed the Writ Petition.
He also indicated in his daily report that he had visited M s Singla Medicos, Ropar to whom he distributed various samples of the appellants products.
The respondent was appointed as a Medical Representative of the appellant with his headquarter at Ludhiana.
Under the jobs assigned to the respondent, he was to visit the doctors, hospitals and chemists to promote the sale of medicines manufactured and marketed by the appellant.
The respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana on 10.4.1991.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is a pharmaceutical companypany engaged in manufacturing and marketing of various pharmaceutical products.
Since the respondent had submitted a report that he had visited Dr. Singla on 31.8.1989 which was obviously false as Dr. Singla had already been killed by the terrorists on 7th of August, 1989, a charge sheet for the misconduct, specified in Rule 14, was issued to him on 23.12.1989 on the basis of which a departmental enquiry was held against the respondent which was companypleted on 18.5.1990 and the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer were that the charges levelled against him were fully proved.
While the matter was pending before the Labour Court, the appellant moved an application on 10.3.1995 that since the respondent was only a Medical Representative, he was number companyered by the definition of workman as laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and companysequently the proceedings before the Labour Court were wholly without jurisdiction.
The preliminary objection raised by the appellant was accepted by the Labour Court which, by its Award dated 02.05.1995, held that the respondent was number a workman and companysequently dismissed the reference.
Rule 14 of the Service Rules applicable to the Medical Representatives employed in the appellants Company provides as under MISCONDUCT Fraud or dishonesty in companynection with the Companys business or property.
It was later discovered by the appellant that Dr. Singla had already died on 7th of August, 1989, having been killed by the terrorists and that M s Singla Medicos at Ropar had been closed from 08.08.1989 onwards.
