The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical representatives are considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, and that the charges against an employee must be proved to justify termination.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastava and Sri Nischal Jagdhari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of award dated 24.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Lucknow thereby allowing claim preferred by respondent no. 2 – workman and holding that domestic enquiry held against the workman was illegal and arbitrary and order passed against the workman as a result of domestic enquiry, was set aside holding that the workman was entitled to continue in service with effect from the date of his termination alongwith all consequential benefits.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent no. 2 – workman was initially appointed as clerk in M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. with effect from 10.04.1973. Subsequently, by means of order dated 22.09.1982, he was appointed as Trainee Technical Representative and further was appointed on the post of Medical Representative.

4. It is stated that while discharging his duties as Medical Representative the workman-respondent no. 2 was involved in certain acts of misconduct and most specifically submitting false call reports from 05.10.1996 to 18.10.1996 of visiting Doctors and Chemists to whom in fact he has not visited. For his acts of misconduct an explanation was sought by means of a letter dated 07.12.1996 and not being satisfied with his explanation a regular enquiry was instituted. Accordingly charge sheet was issued to the workman-respondent no. 2 on 04.04.1997. Respondent no. 2 was duly heard in the said proceedings, and he defended himself. The enquiry proceedings were held at New Delhi on 6th and 7th May, 1988 but the respondent no. 2 did not appear and on his request the enquiry was fixed for 10.06.1998, but he again did not appear and the matter was adjourned for 23.06.1998. On 23.06.1998, respondent no. 2 appeared and filed his documents.

5. The enquiry concluded and the enquiry officer submitted his report where he found all the charges levelled against respondent no. 2 – workman to be proved. The workman was given show cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report to which he responded and finally he was dismissed from service by means of order dated 12th March, 1999 and was paid compensation of Rs.1,64,346/- and one month salary. Against his termination, the workman-respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the competent authority.

6. The respondent no. 2 raised industrial dispute under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and subsequently a reference was made on 08.09.1999 requiring the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute raised by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner. In the said proceedings the petitioner put in appearance and filed written statement and opposed the claim set forth by the workman-respondent no. 2.

7. After completion of the pleadings Labour Court framed preliminary issue with regard to the facts as to whether domestic enquiry was fair and proper opportunity was given to the workman during the said proceedings. The Labour Court after perusing entire proceedings of the domestic enquiry and the procedure followed therein, returned a finding that respondent no. 2 – workman was Medical Representative and he had stated that he had visited various Doctors on 05.10.1996 and 18/10/1996 and informed the Doctors and pharmacists about various drugs being sold by the petitioner company. It was noticed by the petitioner that on 05.10.1996 there was meeting of Union in which respondent no. 2 participated and it was not possible to visit Doctors and pharmacists in his capacity as Medical Representative and charged the workman for submitting false call reports.

8. It was noticed that the statements of said Doctors were not recorded, and merely by considering the fact that on that date meeting the workman would not have visited or called on the Doctors and consequently had submitted