Medical Representatives and Sales Promotion Officers do not fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as sales promotion work is distinct from manual, clerical, supervisory, or technical labor.

ORDER :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

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 State 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 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 dated30.06.2021.

4. Instead of challenging the dismissal, the appellant had filed an Application under Section-33A before the Labour Court, Dewas, wherein he had 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 Con