Termination founded on misconduct without a domestic enquiry is void and constitutes punitive action.

The Respondent/Workman was appointed as a Medical Sales Representative (MSR) in 1985 and confirmed in 1986

In September 1995, the Petitioner/Management "froze" the Workman's duties without explanation

Subsequently, a transfer order to Ratlam was issued while an industrial dispute regarding transfer policies was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai

The Workman requested the transfer be kept in abeyance; however, the Management rejected this and terminated his services on 01.11.1995 via a discharge simpliciter clause, providing one month's salary in lieu of notice

No domestic enquiry or show-cause notice preceded the termination

Following a decade of litigation that reached the Supreme Court, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the ID Act

The Labour Court set aside the termination, ordering reinstatement with 25% back wages

1. Whether the respondent qualifies as a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the reference was maintainable?

2. Whether the termination of the respondent, founded on alleged misconduct (non-compliance with transfer), was illegal, unjustified, or disproportionate?

3. Whether the findings of the Labour Court suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227?

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) defining "workman" and Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (SPE Act), which deems sales promotion employees to be workmen

Reliance on H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. regarding the status of medical representatives

Reliance on D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries concerning the necessity of natural justice in terminations affecting livelihood

Principle from Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, which established that discharge cannot be used as a substitute for punishment when misconduct (like non-joining after transfer) is the foundation of the action

The court first dismissed the challenge to the Workman's status, noting that under the amended SPE Act (1987), MSRs are deemed workmen, and the Petitioner was estopped from raising this belatedly

On the merits, the court determined that the termination was not a "discharge simpliciter" but "punitive" because the management’s own pleadings cited "impunity" and "defiance" as the reasons for termination

The absence of a charge-sheet or domestic enquiry violated the principles of natural justice

Regarding the transfer, the court found the Workman acted under a bona fide belief that the pending Mumbai reference afforded him protection

The court held that while transfer is a management prerogative, the "precipitous" termination within 18 days of rejecting a representation—without an enquiry—was disproportionate under Section 11-A of the ID Act

The court held that the termination was illegal and unjustified

The court ordered that: (i) the Workman be deemed to have continued in service until superannuation for all retirement benefits; (ii) no back wages are due for 1995–2010; (iii) 25% back wages are due for 2010–2015; and (iv) full wages from the date of the Award (2015) until the actual date of superannuation must be paid. All retiral dues must be released within twelve weeks.