Medical Representatives Deemed To Be "Workman" Under Industrial Disputes Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that following the enactment of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 ("SPE Act"), medical representatives are deemed to be "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. U.D. Pademwar and of the Supreme Court in...
The Allahabad High Court has held that following the enactment of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 ("SPE Act"), medical representatives are deemed to be "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. U.D. Pademwar and of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd, Justice Alok Mathur observed that “after 06.05.1987 all the medical representatives were declared to be workmen without limitation on their wages thereafter and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged.”
It was also held that when no new material or evidence is brought on record to show infirmity in the order of the Labour Court, remanding the matter would be a futile exercise.
Pithily put, the workman in question was appointed with the petitioner as a Medical Representative. He was alleged to have submitted false call reports of visiting Doctors and Chemists for 2 dates. The enquiry officer had found the charges proved. The workman was dismissed and his appeal against termination rejected.
The petitioner's allegations included the fact that there was a Workers Union meeting on the date(s) in question, in which the workman participated. Thus, he could not have visited Doctors/Chemists on said date.
The Labour Court, inter-alia, noted that statements of Doctors whom the workman claimed to have visited were not recorded. Further, the workman had produced certificates issued by various Doctors certifying that he visited them, which could not be disbelieved in absence of contrary evidence.
Against the Labour Court's order, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that if the Labour Court believed that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper, the petitioner should have been given opportunity to adduce further evidence.
Additionally, it was argued that the workman being engaged as a Medical Representative was not a “workman” as per Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance was placed on May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, wherein the Supreme Court held that medical representatives were not workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
After hearing rival submissions, Justice Mathur concurred with the Labour Court that charges against the workman were sought to be proved based on conjecture without there being any material in support.
On the petitioner's contention regarding lack of opportunity to adduce additional evidence, it was said that “to avail of the benefit of leading evidence before the Labour Court in support of the charges levelled in domestic enquiry, the first condition is that the option in this regard should be exercised by the employer at the time of filing of written statement.”
The court observed that opportunity to lead further evidence was sought by the petitioner in the written statement. However, the evidence before the Labour Court was conclusive of the fact that the workman had visited Doctors. Moreover, despite repeated requests, the statements of Doctors relied upon by the workman were not recorded in the domestic inquiry.
The court remarked that “a vain attempt” had been made to challenge the order of the Labour Court as no new evidence or material was placed on record by the petitioner to support its case.
"...it was necessary for the petitioner to demonstrate that there was other evidence which was available but could not be produced during the domestic enquiry, and that evidence was relevant and necessary to bring home the charges. In the absence of any such material or assertion made before this Court, remanding the matter to the Labour Court would be futile and an empty formality, and is unjustified in the facts of the present case.”
In the analysis, it was also observed that pursuant to the judgment in May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, Parliament had enacted the SPE Act by which Medical Representatives who were defined as Sales Promotion Employees were held to be "workman" under section 6(1) & (2). As such, the judgment was no longer good law in context of the case.
Finding no infirmity in the Labour Court's order, the court dismissed the petition.
Counsels for petitioner: Advocates Dr. RK Srivastava and Nishchal Jagdhari
Counsels for respondent: CSC Birendra Pd. Singh and Sanjay Saxena
Case Title: M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and Ors vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko. and 3 Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 459, WRIT-C No. 1004529/2007
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 459