*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.24523 of 2000 %13.12.2010 #M/s. FDC Limited Hyderabad and others. ..Petitioners. Vs. $ The Andhra Pradesh Medical and Sales Representatives Union, Guntur Branch and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioners : Ms.G.Sudha ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy for R.1 and 4 GP for Employment <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: [1] 2007 (2) scc616 [1] 2010 (7) scj 543 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24523 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company with Head Quarters at Hyderabad. It has appointed the 4th respondent as one of its Medical Representatives. Through order, dated 26.02.1999, the petitioner terminated the services of the 4th respondent. On his behalf, the A.P. Medical and Sale Representatives Union, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein, approached the Authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short, ‘the Shops Act’), the 3rd respondent, by filing an appeal. A miscellaneous petition was filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 292 days in institution of the appeal. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner. A counter-affidavit was filed, opposing the petition for delay as well as the appeal. The petitioner challenges the very jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the case. The petitioner submits that the service conditions and other relevant matters of the medical representatives are governed by the provisions of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the 1976 Act’) and that the Shops Act has no application to such persons. By referring to the definitions of “establishment” under Section 2 of the 1976 Act and the corresponding definitions under the Shops Act, the petitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent stands excluded, in respect of the matters covered by the former Act. No counter-affidavit is filed by the contesting respondents. Ms.G.Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1976 Act is a central enactment, and even assuming that the Shops Act has any application to the medical representatives, it stands excluded by operation of the 1976 Act. She contends that the 1976 Act covers a particular category of establishments and they cannot be part of larger and general definition under the Shops Act. She places reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in SPIC Pharmaceuticals Division v. Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act[1] a n d P.Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India[2]. Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Employment, on the other hand, submit that the 1976 Act, has only conferred certain additional benefits over and above what they are entitled to, under other labour welfare legislations, such as Industrial Disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act, Shops Act etc. It is urged that there is nothing under the 1976 Act to suggest that the jurisdiction of the Authority under other enactments is excluded expressly, or by necessary implication. He places reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9872 of 1997, dated 25.01.2000. The petitioner challenges the very jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent to entertain the claim submitted by the 1st respondent. The ground urged by him is that the 1976 Act governs the service conditions of medical representatives, and in that view of the matter, the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent under the Shops Act, is excluded. In case there is conflict between the 1976 Act and the Shops Act, the contention of the petitioner can straight away be accepted. However, it emerges that there is hardly any conflict. The 1976 Act confers certain benefits upon the medical representatives. This became necessary on account of the fact that their working is not at a particular place and the conditions, under which they work, are totally different. With a view to cover them, the Act defined the word “establishment” under Section 2(a) as, the one engaged in pharmaceutical industry, or in any notified industry. There is nothing in the enactment, which would suggest that the remedies that are available to the medical representatives in their capacity as workmen under other enactments, are excluded. On the other hand, Section 6(2) makes various enactments, such as, the Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum Wages Act, Maternity Benefit Act, Payment of Bonus Act, and Payment of Gratuity Act etc. applicable to the medical representatives also. The Supreme Court held in several cases that, if a workman is entitled for the relief under various enactments, he has the right to choose any one. The remedies under the Shops Act, on the one hand, and the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the ID Act’), on the other, are not mutually exclusive and the workmen can choose to avail the remedy under any of them. The impact of the 1976 Act upon the remedies available under the Shops Act, was considered in detail by this Court in W.P.No.9872 of 1997, which incidentally was filed by the petitioner itself. The writ petition was dismissed on 25.01.2000 and the same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.228 of 2000. This, in turn, was carried to Supreme Court in Spic Pharmaceuticals Division’s case. From a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court was not unsettled. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the forum created under the ID Act with the law laid down by this Court, remained untouched; is evident from the following observations: “…It is not to be understood that we have said that the Appellate authorities under the Act do not have jurisdiction. We are not really deciding that issue as to whether there was exclusion of the jurisdiction of authorities made the Shops Act because it specifically provided that the forum under the ID Act can be approached. We make it clear that we have 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…” In the instant case, the occasion for the State Government to make a reference does not arise. The Union has taken up the matter and directly approached the Authority under the Shops Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.13.12.2010. L.R. copy to be marked. GJ [1] 2007 (2) scc616 [2] 2010 (7) scj 543