IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>AT INDORE

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

<>

ON THE 21

<>

st

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT APPEAL No. 3155 of 2025

<>

JYOTI KUMAR

<>

Versus

M/S ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Vimal Raghuvanshi, authorised by petitioner and permitted to argue

on his behalf by order dated 13.11.2025.

Shri Anurag Lakhotia alongwith Shri Aditya Goyal, learned counsel for the

respondent.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

<>

The present intra court appeal is filed under section (1) OF M.P.

UCHHANYAYALYA KHANDPEETH KO APPEAL ADHINIYAM, 2005

being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in

MP No.5782/2023 and order dated 01.09.2025 passed in RP No.1209/2024,

whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the

respondent/company holding the petitioner (respondent herein) does not fall

within the definition of Workman, and therefore, the reference made by the Stsate

Government to the Labour Court was within the jurisdiction. Against the said

judgement, review filed by the appellant has also been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is a Public Limited

1 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

Company established under the Companies Act and is in the business of

manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products, and it has a complete team of

Business Officers (BOs) and Senior Business Officers (SBOs) across India, who

work as M.R’s (Medical Representatives).

3. The appellant was employed as a Medical Representative (Sales

Promotion Officer). He has been receiving a salary of more than Rs.10,000/- per

month and he has been doing the work of a Medical Representative, thus, does not

fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

The appellant has been suspended from his services through Suspension Letter

dated 10.10.2020 and has been issued charge-sheet dated 17.10.2020 on the

ground of false reporting. The appellant, after receiving the suspension letter, had

filed a complaint before the Labour Office, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, wherein he

had stated that his service conditions had been changed as he has been suspended

without any charge-sheet and that there was some kind of a deduction from his

monthly salary. The notice had been issued on the said complaint on 20.10.2020

to which the Management has sent a reply on 28.10.2020. Thereafter, on

07.11.2020, the appellant again filed a complaint before the Labour Office,

Dewas, wherein he made allegations under Section-9 (a) that there is a change in

his service conditions, as the respondent was conducting enquiry against the

Industrial Disputes Act. The said complaint was taken on record. However, as

such, no notice was issued to the Management over the said complaint. Thereafter,

following the principles of natural justice detailed enquiry was conducted and the

services of the appellant were dismissed through the termination letter dated

30.06.2021.

4. Instead of challenging the dismissal, the appellant had filed an

Application under Section-33A before the Labour Court, Dewas, wherein he had

2 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

alleged that the conciliation proceedings were pending from 14.10.2020 till the

time he had filed that application, and that his services had been dismissed without

taking any permission and the same is against Section-25(f), Section-9(a) as well

as Section-33. Thus, he prayed that the termination letter dated 30.06.2021 should

be set aside and he sought reinstatement with full back wages.

5. The Labour Court had entertained the said application under Section-

33A and issued notice seeking reply from the Management and registered it as a

Reference under Case No.27/2021 by initiating the adjudication of the said

application against the Management. Against the said actions, the Management

filed a Misc. Petition No. 4834 of 2021 wherein the Court vide order dated

17.11.2022 set aside the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Labour Court,

Dewas in case no. 27/ID/2021 whereby, the Labour Court has registered the

application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further,

liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh application under Section 10 of

the Act before the Labour Officer / Conciliation Officer, Dewas against his

termination with a direction to the Labour Office to proceed in accordance with

law, however the Court has specifically clarified that the Court has not reflected

on the merits of the matter and that the Conciliation Officer shall decide the matter

in accordance with the law on its own merits including objection of the respondent

regarding jurisdiction of the Labour Officer.

6. Thereafter, the appellant moved to the Conciliation Officer, Dewas and

filed an application under Section 10 of the Act dated 05.12.2022 with a prayer

inter-alia to set aside his termination to which the management submitted a

detailed reply dated 06.12.2022 with a preliminary objection of territorial

jurisdiction and the appellant admittedly being a ‘Medical Representative’ or Sales

Promotion Employee and therefore, not a workman under the Industrial Disputes

3 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

Act, 1947. However, without considering the same, the Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Indore passed the impugned reference dated 14.03.2023 no.70/7--

/2023/8123-30. Thereafter, Labour Court, Dewas has initiated the proceedings as

Ref. No. 12/2023; “Sh. Jyoti Kumar Sharma vs. M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd. &

Ors.” on the impugned reference order.

7. The impugned reference order was challenged on the ground that

Medical representative/sales promotion officer is not a workman under Section 2

(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The learned Single Judge held that in Paragraph-1 of Annexure-P-4, i.e.

the statement of claim of appellant states that he is continuously working with the

respondent/company as the Medical Representative since 1997 vide appointment

letter dated 03.03.1997. The description of his work of Sales Promotion Officer is

mentioned to contact the Doctors and Medical Store Proprietor to provide the sale

of medicines and accept the booking orders from the Medical Store Promoters,

and Doctors forward the same to the stockist for supply of the medicines. This

nature of his work clearly shows that he was required to perform a duty of skilled

or technical nature and therefore he was not a "Workman" and dismissed the

petition referring the judgment passed in the case of Samat Kumar Vs M/s Parke

<>

Davis India Ltd reported in 1997 (2) JLJ 353

<>

. The review was also dismissed,

hence, present intra-court appeal is filed.

9. On 11.12.2025, counsel for the respondent argued that the issue

"whether Medical Representative/Sales Promotion Officer falls under the category

of Workman or not" has already been settled in various judgments by this

Court/co-ordinate bench and the Apex Court. The authorised person for the

petitioner had taken time to go through the same and then to argue.

4 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

10. He argued that the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable as they

were dealing the issue of a "Medical Representative" and not "Sales Promotion

Officer", who are appointed under Sales Promotion Employee (Condition of

Service) Act, 1976. To bolster his submission he has relied on the following

judgments:-

S.No.

<>

Particular

<>

1.

May and Baker Vs Their Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 678, Supreme

Court of India

2.

DP Maheshwari Vs Delhi. Admin, 1983 SCR (3) 949, Supreme

Court of India

3.

Ripu Daman Vs Preciding Officer, 1997 (1) LU 557, (DB) Punjab

and Haryana High Court

4. Cipla Ltd Vs. Ripu Daman, CA 2230/1999, Supreme Court of India

5.

Rhone Polenc Vs State Of UP, 2000 (7) SCC 67, Supreme Court of

India

6. Novartis India VsVipin Srivastava WA No.75/2017

7.

Novartis India Itd Vs Association, 2005 (2) LU 964, High Court of

Bombay

8.

Anand Regional Vs. Shaileshkumar, 2006 (6) SC 548, Supreme

Court of India

9.

Novartis India Ltd Vs State of WB, 2009 (3) SCC 124, Supreme

Court of India

10.

Themis Medicare Vs The Asstt., WP No. 21624/2011, MP High

Court Indore

11.

Glenmark Pharmaceutical Vs The Judge, DB CSA (W)

No.801/2014 High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur

12.

Glenmark Pharmaceutical Vs Rajesh Joshi, SLP (C) CC

No.22895/2015, Supreme Court of India

13.

Deepak Kumar Vs Torrent Pharmaceutical, LPA NO.1798/2012,

High Court of Patna

14.

Rajkamal Vs Gas Antibiotic & Pharmaceutical, SS No.7871/1992,

High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow

15.

UCB India VsAdditional Labour, WP- 2499/2017, MP High Court

Indore

16.

Novartis India Vs The Chairman, WP No. 15696/2009, High Court

Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati

17.

Deepak Kumar Vs Torrent Pharmaceutical, Award, Ref. Case No.

04/2006, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur

18.

Nicholas Piramal Vs Presiding officer, WC No.1004529/2007

High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow

5 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

19.

Vipin Srivastava Vs Novartis India, SLP(C) No.6309/2019

Supreme Court of India

20.

S.Raja Vs Panacea Biotech, WP No. 352/2024, High Court of

Madras

21.

Nicholas Piramal Vs GC Suri, CA No. 2390/2025, Supreme Court

of India

22.

UCB India Vs Additional Labour, WA No. 284/2020, MP High

Court Indore

23.

Vishal Singh Vs Sun Pharmaceutical, CWJC No.5202/2022 High

Court of Patna

24.

Vimal Vs Abbott healthcare, SLP(C ) Diary No.6766/2024

Supreme Court of India

11. Per contra, counsel for the respondent relied on the following

judgments:-

S.No.

<>

Particulars

<>

1.

Novartis India Ltd Vs Vipin Shrivastava and Ors WA No.75/2017,

High Court of MP Bench Indore

2.

Vimal Vs. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd and Ors WA No.43/2021,

High Court of MP Bench Indore

3.

Sanat Kumar Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd. 1996 SCC OnLine MP

708 High Court of Madhya

Pradesh

4.

Zydus Healthcare Ltd Vs. Brijesh Singh WP No.24851/2021 High

Court of MP

5.

Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt Ltd Vs. Secretary MP Medical

and Sales Representatives Association and Anor WP No.1307/2017

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

6.

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Yogendra Singh Chouhan 2020 SCC

OnLine MP 2738 High Court of Madhya Pradesh

7.

Yogendra Singh Chouhan VS. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Ano

WA No.46/2021 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore

8.

MP Medical and Sales Representatvies Association and Anor Vs.

Provimi Animal Nutirtiion India Pvt Ltd WA No.07/2019 High Court

of Madhya Pradesh

12. The question for consideration is whether a Medical Representative

falls within the definition of "workman" in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

13. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of May

<>

and Baker (India) Limited vs. Workmen’, reported in AIR 1967 SC 678

<>

had an

6 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

occasion to directly deal with the question as to whether the Medical

Representatives of the company, who are discharged from service, are the

workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and the order of reinstatement passed

by the Industrial Tribunal was, therefore, valid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

referred to the undisputed nature of the duties of the employees and found that his

main work was of canvassing sales. Any clerical or manual work that he had to do

was incidental to the said main work, and could not make more than a small

fraction of time for which he had to work. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the employee was a

workman under the Industrial Disputes Act was incorrect.

14. A similar issue was considered by a three-Judge Bench judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Western India Match Company Limited vs.

<>

Workman reported in AIR 1964 SC 472.

<>

The question before the Court was

whether the sales office was entirely independent of the factory or was a

department of the one and the same unit of production, and whether Inspectors,

Salesman and Retail Salesman of the sales office were workmen within the

meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The matter was referred by the State

Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 18.08.1961. After a

detailed analysis of the matter, the Bench following the earlier decision in the case

of May and Baker’s case (supra) has arrived at a similar finding that they cannot

be termed as a workman in terms of the definition under the Act of 1947.

15. A similar issue was considered in the case of Burmah (Supra) and again

the judgment passed in May and Baker’s case (supra) was taken into consideration

and the Court has given the verdict in the light of May and Baker’s case. The

three-Judge Bench in the case of May and Baker (supra) has taken a view that a

7 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

person to be qualified to be a workman must be doing the work which falls in any

of the four categories viz. manual, supervisory, technical or clerical. If a person

does not fall within the four exceptions to the aforesaid definition, he is a

workman within the definition as provided under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947.

Therefore, the position is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

cases.

16. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

H.R. Adyanthaya and Ors Vs. Sandos (India) Ltd and Ors reported in (1994) 5

<>

SCC 737

<>

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"24. We thus have three three-Judge Bench decisions which

have taken the view that a person to be qualified to be a

workman must be doing the work which falls in any of the

four categories, viz., manual, clerical, supervisory or

technical and two twoJudge Bench decisions which have by

referring to one or the other of the said three decisions have

reiterated the said law. As against this, we have three three-

Judge Bench decisions which have without referring to the

decisions in May & Baker [(1961) 2 LLJ 94 : AIR 1967 SC

678 : (1961) 2 FLR 594] , WIMCO [(1964) 3 SCR 560 :

AIR 1964 SC 472 : (1963) 2 LLJ 459] and Burmah Shell

[(1970) 3 SCC 378 : (1971) 2 SCR 758 : AIR 1971 SC 922

: (1970) 2 LLJ 590] cases have taken the other view which

was expressly negatived, viz., if a person does not fall within

the four exceptions to the said definition he is a workman

within the meaning of the ID Act. These decisions are also

based on the facts found in those cases. They have,

therefore, to be confined to those facts. Hence the position

in law as it obtains today is that a person to be a workman

under the ID Act must be employed to do the work of any of

the categories, viz., manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory. It is not enough that he

is not covered by either of the four exceptions to the

definition. We reiterate the said interpretation.

33. It was contended by Shri Sharma, appearing for the

workmen that the definition of workman under the ID Act

includes all employees except those covered by the four

exceptions to the said definition. His second contention was

that in any case, the medical representatives perform duties

of skilled and technical nature and, therefore, they are

workmen within the 3 meaning of the said definition. We are

afraid that both these contentions are untenable in the light

of the position of law discussed above. The first contention

8 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

was expressly negatived by two three-Judge Benches in

May & Baker [(1961) 2 LLJ 94 : AIR 1967 SC 678 : (1961)

2 FLR 594] and Burmah Shell [(1970) 3 SCC 378 : (1971) 2

SCR 758 : AIR 1971 SC 922 : (1970) 2 LLJ 590] cases as

has been pointed out in detail above. As regards the second

contention, it really consists of two subcontentions, viz., that

the medical representatives are engaged in ‘skilled’ and

‘technical’ work. As regards the word ‘skilled’, we are of the

view that the connotation of the said word in the context in

which it is used, will not include the work of a sales

promotion employee such as the medical representative in

the present case. That word has to be construed ejusdem

generis and thus construed, would mean skilled work

whether manual or non-manual, which is of a genre of the

other types of work mentioned in the definition. The work of

promotion of sales of the product or services of the

establishment is distinct from and independent of the types

of work covered by the said definition. Hence the contention

that the medical representatives were employed to do skilled

work within the meaning of the said definition, has to be

rejected. As regards the ‘technical’ nature of their work, it

has been expressly rejected by this Court in Burmah Shell

case [(1970) 3 SCC 378 : (1971) 2 SCR 758 : AIR 1971 SC

922 : (1970) 2 LLJ 590]. Hence that contention has also to

be rejected.

39. We are, therefore, of the view that the contention raised

on behalf of the management in this appeal, viz., since the

medical representatives are not workmen within the

meaning, of the Maharashtra Act the complaint made to the

Industrial Court under that Act was not maintainable, has to

be accepted. Hence the complaint filed by the appellant-

workmen under the Maharashtra Act in the present case was

not maintainable and hence it was rightly dismissed by the

Industrial Court."

17. The judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya’s case (supra) has come up for

consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Samat Kumar (supra) ,

<>

wherein the reference to the Labour Court was subject matter of challenge on the

part of the management. Though the workman was said to be working as 'Area

Sales Manager' in managerial capacity drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-,

therefore, he was not a workman but while examining the scope of Adhyanthaya’s

case (supra), the Court held that the work of promotion of sales of the product or

services of the establishment is distinct from and independent of the types of work

covered by the said definition under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The relevant

9 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

extract of the Division Bench judgment reads as under:-

“10. As against it, learned counsel for the respondent No.1

has placed reliance on a case as reported in 1988 (II)

MPWN 116 = AIR 1988 SC 1700 (Miss A. Sundarambal v.

Govt. of Goa, Deman & Diu and others) whereby it was held

that teacher employed in a school is not a workman. But,

now the dispute stands resolved with respect to the cases of

Medical Representative as reported in AIR 1994 SC 2608

[H.R. Adyanthya etc. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc.)

whereby it has been held that ‘Workman’ does not include

all employees except those covered by four exceptions in

said definition of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act.

Medical Representatives do not perform duties of ‘skilled’

or ‘technical’ nature and therefore, they are not ‘workmen’.

The connotation of word ‘skilled’ in the context in which it

is used, will not include work of a Sales Promotion

Employees such as Medical Representative. That word has

to be construed ejusdem generis and thus construed, would

mean skilled work whether manual or non-manual, which is

of a genre of the other types of work mentioned in the

definition. The work of promotion of sales of the product or

services of the establishment is distinct from and

independent of the types of work covered by the said

definition.”

After returning such finding, it was held that the reference was not

maintainable as Medical Representative would not fall within the definition of

workman.

18. In German Remedies Limited’s case (supra) relying upon H.R.

Adyanthaya’s case (supra) held that the Medical Representative is a workman.

The relevant extracts of the said decision in German Remedies Limited’s case read

as under:-

“14. With regard to meet out, the objections - the petitioner

about the status of respondent No. 2, whether he would be a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has to be dealt with. The

Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in

a judgment H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and

others [(1994) 5 SCC 737]. The Apex Court in the said case

was considering the status of Medical Representatives and

10 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

the Apex Court came to the conclusion that since there had

been an amendment in the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and also by virtue of the provisions of

Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of

Service) Act, 1976 makes application to the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as in force for the time

being, therefore, the Apex Court held that a Medical

Representative shall be a workman within the meaning of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15. The aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court had

also been considered by the Rajasthan High Court in

Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. v. Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur

and Another 2001-II-LLJ-559 (Raj.) and also by Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Ripu Daman Bhanot v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and Ors. 1997-I-LLJ-557

(P&H). The aforesaid two High Courts have also dealt with

the similar questions and relying upon the ratio of Sandoz's

case (supra) held that Medical Representative is a workman

for the purpose of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

16. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the two High

Courts based upon the earlier judgment passed by the Apex

Court in Sandoz's case (supra), this objection of the

petitioner also cannot be accepted.”

19. In the case of Novertis India Ltd Vs Vipin Shrivastava 2018 SCC

<>

Online MP 1931

<>

, a Division Bench held that in the German Remedies Limited’s

case (supra), has misread the judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya’s case (supra) to hold

that Medical Representatives are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of

the ID Act. In fact, three categories were created by the Supreme Court. In respect

of the Medical Representatives engaged prior to enactment of SPE Act w.e.f.

06.03.1976, they were held not governed either by ID Act or SPE Act. In respect

of employees whose services were terminated after 06.03.1976, the appeals were

dismissed for the reason that it is not the case of the employees that their wages

were less than Rs.750/- per month excluding commission, therefore, the SPE Act

did not apply to them. The only dispute which was referred to Industrial Court

under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair

Labour Practice Act, 1971 was in respect of transfer of the employees affected on

16.02.1988. The Supreme Court found that the definition of workman under ID

11 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

Act will not cover the sales promotion employees within the meaning of SPE Act.

The Division Bench found that the judgment in the caes of German Remedies

(supra) was not correct.

20. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of

Bihar (2016) 149 FLR 528, held as under:-

“9. The Sales Promotion Employee as defined under the SPE

Act as reproduced above includes any person by whatever

name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged

in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work

relating to promotion of sales or business, or both. The main

provision is wide enough to include all categories of

employees engaged for hire or reward to do any work

relating to promotion of sale of business. The petitioner falls

within such category. As admittedly, he was appointed as a

person to promote sale of the pharmaceutical products, as is

evident from Charge Sheet dated 13th December, 2002,

which is to the effect that the appellant has failed to achieve

the targets of sale of group of medicines. The notice

(Annexure2 to the writ petition) itself recites the appellant as

a Medical Representative. Therefore, he is a Sales

Promotion Employee. But there is exclusion clause of Sales

Promotion Employees and not all Sales Promotion

Employees are the employees within the meaning of Section

2(d) of the SPE Act.

21. In the case of Petcare Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.P.

<>

Medical and Sales Representatives Association and another (W.A.No.922 of

<>

2006)

<>

decided on 21.12.2022, the Division Bench categorically held that 'Medical

Representative' does not fall under the definition of "workman" as defined under

Section 2(s) of the 4 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant extract is as

under:-

"18. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in H.R. Adyanthaya’s (supra) has categorically held that the

Medical Representatives are not the workman; therefore, the

complaint made to the Industrial Court is not maintainable

itself. The arguments raised by the appellant that even in the

case of H.R. Adyanthaya’s (supra), the benefits were

12 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

extended and they were treated to be the complainant in the

matter and the State Government was given directions but

the fact remains that the powers were exercised under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. But the law which has been settled in the

aforesaid case by the Constitution Bench is clear that the

Medical Representatives or the Sales Promotion Of icer do

not fall under the definition of workman. The learned Single

Judge has followed the aforesaid judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and has rightly set aside the order

passed by the Labour Court. Under these circumstances, we

do not have any hesitation to observe that no illegality is

committed by the writ court in allowing the writ petition. In

absence of any cogent material or a judgment to override the

observations made by the writ court and the law settled by

the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

H.R. Adyanthaya’s (supra), no relief can be extended to the

appellant."

22. Thus, it was held that the Medical Representative/Sales Promotion

Office is not a workman in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court passed in Writ Appeal No.75/2017 parties being [Novartis India Limited

Vs. Vipin Shrivastava & others], therefore, any dispute relating to a 'Medical

Representative/Sales Promotion Officer' cannot be entertained by the Labour

Court as they do not come within the definition of 'workman' under Section-2(s)

of the Act.

23. In (2015) 7 SCC 263 parties being [Chauharya Tripathi & others Vs.

<>

Life Insurance Corporation of India & others]

<>

in which, the Apex Court had held

that the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation does not fall

within the definition of workman. He further submits that the Apex Court has

placed reliance on a case reported in 1994 (5) SCC 737 parties being [H.R.

<>

Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd.]

<>

and therefore, the order passed by the

Division Bench in the case of Novartis India Limited (supra) also placing reliance

in the case of Adyanthaya (supra) has held that the Medical Representative does

13 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

<>

(ALOK AWASTHI)

<>

not fall within the definition of workman.

24. Against the view taken by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Petcare

(supra) that the Medical Representative or the Sales Promotion Employee do not

fall under the definition of Workman under section 2(S) of ID Act, an SLP

No.15250/2023 was preferred. The said SLP was dismissed by order dated

10.07.2023.

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law, it is held that the Medical

Representative/Sales Promotion Officer do not fall within the definition of a

Workman.

26. In the present case, the pleading in para 01 of his statement of claim

of the appellant is important, which is quoted as under:-

"आवेदन अंतग6त धारा 10 (1) (डD) औPोिगक Lववाद अिधिनयम 1947

आवेदक कK ओर से 2टेटमsट tलेम िन0निल6खत ह3।

1. यह fक आवेदक देवास का िनवासी होकर अनावेदक rं. 1 के यहाँ पर दवा

pितिनिध के पद पर वष6 1997 से काय6 करता आ रहा है। आवेदक कK िनयुL:

अनावेदक सं2थान मs िनयुL: पi fदनांक 03.03.1997 mारा Lवrय संवध6न

कम6चारD के काय6 हेतु िसिनयर Lबजनेस ऑfफसर के पद पर कK गई थी

आवेदक दैिनक काय6 हेतु pितfदन डॉtटरw एवं मेfडकल 2टोर से िमलकर

अनावेदक सं2थान कK दवाईयw का pचार pसार एवं मेfडकल 2टोर और

डॉtटरw से कंपनी के उ)पादw कK बुfकंग का ऑड6र लेकर 2टॉfक2ट को स7लाई

के िलए देते थे तथा जहाँ 2टॉfक2ट कK पहुँच नहDं है वहाँ 2वयं उ)पादw को

लेकर मेfडकल 2टोर और डॉtटर को देने जाते थे। (िनयुL: पi fदनांक

03.03.1997 संल8नक 1 के 4प मs p2तुत है)"

27. In view of the said pleading, fact, record and judgment of the courts,

we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

28. The appeal is dismissed

<>

.

No order as to costs.

14 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897

JUDGE

<>

JUDGE

<>

Sourabh

15 WA-3155-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1897