Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 5-9-2018 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Labour Court had held that the petitioner, a medical representative, could not categorized as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J, upheld the impugned order stating that a medical representative would not fall under the definition of a ‘skilled’ worker and would therefore not be covered under the ID Act.
Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Background
The petitioner was working as a medical representative or a professional sales representative employed with the respondent. According to the petitioner, he was covered within the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act read with Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
The impugned order had rejected the petitioner’s contention and stated that his work dd not fall under any of the categories of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward as required under the ID Act.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner, by his own admission, is a graduate with specialization in botany honors and has received training regarding the respondent company’s products. Part of his job was to meet doctors, inform them of all the new medicines and products launched by the respondent, and send reports on the same. The petitioner had also affirmed that only a qualified person having specialized knowledge about medical products could recommend medicines to the doctors.
The Court noted that the Labour Court had relied on the judgment of H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737, wherein the Supreme Court had laid down that the term ‘skilled’ would not include the kind of work done by the sales promotion employees since it is distinct and independent of the types of work covered by the definition.
Relying on the same, the Court opined that the petitioner was not a person doing clerical or menial jobs but was a qualified graduate with a specialization who had also received special training in the field. Thus, the work done by the petitioner was a specialized skill that he received after training imparted by the respondent and was not covered under the definition of ‘skilled labour’ under the ID Act.
The Court, therefore, upheld the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the petition.
[Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., W.P.(C) No. 7484 of 2019, decided on 6-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Gautam Kumar Laha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Jitesh Pandey, Hrishabh Tiwari, Pooja Sood, Aniket Singh, Naman Arora, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
