Recently, the Delhi High Court reiterated that medical sales representatives cannot be classified as ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Labour Court, Dwarka. The Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra and reaffirmed that such representatives perform skilled, specialized work, distinct from manual, clerical, or operational duties contemplated under the Act.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka, which had dismissed his claim petition. The Labour Court had held that since the petitioner was employed as a medical sales representative with a pharmaceutical company, he could not be regarded as a ‘workman’.
The petitioner, who worked as a Professional Sales Representative since 1996, claimed protection under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, read with Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. However, his plea had been rejected by the Labour Court relying on the Supreme Court judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya & Ors. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors.
Contentions:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Adyanthaya ruling was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He maintained that the petitioner’s duties were covered within the statutory definition of a workman.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had himself admitted in his pleadings and evidence that he worked as a professional sales representative. Relying upon H.R. Adyanthaya and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Petcare, Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Medical and Sales Representatives Association, it was submitted that medical sales representatives do not fall within the scope of ‘workmen’ as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, while examining the record, noted that there was no dispute regarding the petitioner’s employment or the nature of work he performed. Referring to the Labour Court’s findings, it observed that the petitioner’s role involved meeting doctors, promoting pharmaceutical products, and providing information about medicines, functions requiring specialized training and knowledge.
Quoting the Apex Court in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., the Court reiterated, “Medical representatives are not skilled workers nor are they technical or operational workers. Their work does not fall within any of the categories of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward.”
Further, the Court relied on Bharat Bhawan Trust v. Bharat Bhawan Artists’ Association and T.P. Srivastava v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., where it was held that persons engaged in sales promotion, canvassing, or creative activities cannot be regarded as workmen due to the intellectual and specialized nature of their work.
The Court also emphasized that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate, referring to Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, observing that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum over factual findings of the Labour Court.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no infirmity in the Labour Court’s conclusion, the Court held that the petitioner, being a medical sales representative, could not be categorized as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
Case Title: Sh. Samarendra Das vs. M/S Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7484/2019
Coram: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Gautam Kumar Laha
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Jitesh Pandey, Hrishabh Tiwari, Pooja Sood, Aniket Singh, Naman Arora
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
