IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21503 of 1999 Between: Masinath Patwary … Petitioner AND The F.D.C. Limited, Mumbai (Head office), rep., by GPA T. Sankar, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2: Smt. Uma Devi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21503 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 23.09.1998 passed in I.A.No.149 of 1998 in I.D.No.297 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, respondent No.3 herein. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner was a medical representative of respondent Nos.1 and 2 company. He raised industrial dispute, which was registered as I.D.No.297 of 1997 by respondent No.3, challenging his termination. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.149 of 1998 raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said I.D. on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent No.3, after entertaining the said application and adjudicating the same on merits, held that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’. A perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition shows that in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman, respondent No.3 relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and others vs. Sandoz India Limited and others[1], wherein it was categorically held that the medical representatives are not workmen within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. No one is present in the Court to point out the error in the finding rendered by respondent No.3. As the impugned order is passed following the law declared by the Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with such an order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26964 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.12.2008 ES [1] AIR 1994 SC 2608