Case Law Details
Chhattisgarh High Court held in the case of Himalaya Drugs Company Trademark Vs Shalaj Nathaniel that provisions of the Code Code of Civil Procedure do not stricto sensu apply to “industrial adjudication”, even under the Code, after the Amendment Act, 1976, the normal rule is to decide all the issues together in a civil suit.
Order On Board
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein who are a pharmaceutical industry and its officers have questioned the order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur by which the Labour Court has declined to adjudicate the preliminary objection and directed it to be adjudicated at the time of final hearing and further, questioned the order dated 14- 7-2008 by which the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC for framing additional issue, has been rejected finding no merit.
2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the orders passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application for preliminary objection as well as rejecting the application for framing additional issue, are unjustified, as the respondent is not Medical Representative and is not workman, as such duly covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of H.R. Adyanthaya etc. etc. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc.1. Therefore, the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial Court for framing issue and deciding that issue as preliminary issue.
3. Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel for the respondent, however, would support the impugned orders.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
