Mr. Kunal Madan, Ms. Simran Khan Mr. Ayush Srivastava, Advocates v. HEMANT GAUR

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 01.06.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVI, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, the claim petition that has been filed by the Respondent/Workman was allowed by the learned Labour Court directing that a lumpsum compensation in the sum of Rs.1.65 lacs to be paid to the Respondent along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. It is the undisputed case of the parties that the Respondent was working as a sales executive for textile products in the Petitioner-Company and was drawing a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month in the year 2012. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:17.08.2025 16:09:15 W.P.(C) 10312/2019 Page 1 of 8

2.1 While it is the contention of the Respondent that the Respondent was removed from services, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent left the job on his own will after staying absent from the services without giving any reason.

3. The learned Labour Court has found that since the Respondent was carrying out the work of a salesman, the said work is manual work, and thus, the Respondent is a workman as defined under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”].

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.P. Srivastava v. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Limited1, has contended that the persons who are employed for sales promotion would not come within the definition of the ID Act, and thus, the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen & Ors. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.2 to submit that since this aspect was not raised by the Petitioner or examined by the learned Labour Court, the Petitioner is estopped from raising it before this Court.

6. A review of the Impugned Order shows that there is no dispute about the factum of employment nor about the fact of the work being carrying out by the Respondent/Workman. The learned Labour Court has found that the Respondent/Workman has admitted that his job was of a counter salesman and thus held that this job is manual in nature.