Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5951
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK JAIN, J
ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD – Appellant
Versus
SH. R.P.S. CHANDEL AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 19435 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Aditya Khandekar, Shri Anurag Lakhotia
For the Respondents: Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Shri Praveen Namdeo
Medical representatives are not classified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, impacting referral jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(k), 2(s), 2A - The dispute concerning the status of medical representatives as "workmen" was referred to the Labour Court, which the petitioners challenged, asserting that medical representatives do not fall under the definition of workman. The court explored the definitions of "industrial dispute" and "workman" and cited various precedents to establish that medical representatives are excluded from the definition of workman under the Act. (Paras 1, 7-15)
(B) The court concluded that the appropriate Government has a limited role in examining prima facie demands when making a reference to the Labour Court and should not be construed as adjudicating the merits of the case. It upheld that the medical representatives are not covered under the definition of workmen according to established legal precedents. (Paras 18, 19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the referral of the industrial dispute to the labour court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the role of appropriate government in referencing disputes remains administrative. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. definitions of 'workman' and 'industrial dispute' are crucial to determining jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. medical representatives fail to qualify as workmen under section 2(s) of id act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judgment affirms the petitioner's claims regarding the status of the respondent. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
(Reserved on : 08.08.2025)
(Pronounced on :29.08.2025)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-2, which is the reference made by appropriate Government to the Labour Court, referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court in the matter of alleged dismissal/termination of services of the respondent No.1 and also whether the respondent No.1 falls within the purview of "workman".
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/employer that the medical representatives do not come under the purview of workmen and that the respondent No.1 was terminated from service after following due process of law and after conducting proper enquiry, wherein evidence was led and as an outcome of enquiry the respondent No.1 was terminated from services. He approached the Conciliation Officer and after failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government has referred the matter to the Labour Court.
-
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the law is very well settled that since sales promotion employees and medical representatives do not fall within the purview of workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the State Government could not have referred the matter to the Labour Court.
4. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/workman that the appropriate Government has not erred in referring the matter to the Labour Court and the issue that whether the respondent No.1 falls within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has also been referred to the appropriate Government and therefore, the issue is still open to be decided and adjudicated by the Labour Court, therefore, the Labour Court should be allowed to adjudicate all the issues and also the issue whether the respondent No.1 is a workman and by interfering in the reference order, the right of the petitioner to avail legal remedies should not be curtailed. It is contended that whether the petitioner is a workman or not, is a disputed question of fact, which has to be determined by the Labour Court after adducing evidence before it. The appropriate Government has only administrative powers while making the reference and its role is not adjudicatory in nature. It is only required to adjudge prima facie whether any Industrial Dispute arises in the matter or and all the ancillary issues can very well be raised before the Labour Court and decided by it.
-
5. It is argued that in the present case also the appropriate Government has wisely left the issue that whether the petitioner is workman or not, to be adjudicated by the Labour Court. Therefore, no interference in the matter can be made. It is further contended that mere nomenclature of post or position of the workman is not a determinative factor and the employer can give any exotic nomenclature to any position and the only fact that the nomenclature of post of respondent No.1 was senior business officer does not make him a Supervisory Officer so as to bring him out of purview of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, the respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner. The term “Industrial dispute” itself is defined in Section 2 (k) of I.D. Act 1947 to mean any dispute or difference between the employer and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is connect
