COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 528/2002 M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. …….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun And Others. ……..Respondents Sri D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4. 23 rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated 13.9.2001 passed by the respondent no. 1/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in adjudication case no. 83 of 2000 thereby allowing the claim of the respondent no. 4, Sudhir Kumar Rana for reinstatement along with full back wages. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no. 4 was engaged on 5.7.1994 by the petitioner/employer on the post of Professional Sales Representative. He was promoted as Field Sales Officer with effect from 1.7.1996. His services were terminated on 28.1.1999. On 19.7.1999, respondent no. 4 raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act before the respondent no. 3/Conciliation Officer, Saharanpur, U.P. On 31.3.2000, the Conciliation Officer made reference by exercising powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the Act) for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 13.9.2001 answered the reference in affirmative in favour of the respondent no. 4 and against the petitioner/employer and ordered for his reinstatement along with full back wages. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the respondent no. 4 was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor which is a higher post having managerial powers including the supervisory work and, therefore, he does not come within the definition of the ‘workman’. As such, the award of the Labour Court suffers from illegality. I find force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the dispute afresh after taking fresh evidence on the point as to whether the respondent no. 4, Sudhir Kumar Rana was performing the supervisory duties and falls within the definition of ‘workman’ and whether the reference is barred under Section 4-K of the Act. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.7.2008 Prabodh 2