Case Details

The Court observed that the appellant’s duties primarily involved sales promotion, visiting doctors, and canvassing products, which do not fall within the categories of manual, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work contemplated under the Act. Accordingly, the labour reference made by the State Government was held to be without jurisdiction, and the intra-court appeal was dismissed. 

Legal Issue

Whether a Medical Representative / Sales Promotion Officer falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently whether the reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court was within jurisdiction.

Brief Facts

The respondent company, M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd., is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. The appellant was employed as a Medical Representative, designated as Senior Business Officer, and was receiving a salary exceeding ?10,000 per month.

On 10 October 2020, the appellant was suspended and was subsequently issued a charge-sheet dated 17 October 2020 on allegations of false reporting. He approached the Labour Office, Dewas, alleging illegal change in service conditions, including suspension without charge-sheet and deduction of salary. A reply was submitted by the management. A further complaint under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed on 7 November 2020, alleging that disciplinary proceedings were being conducted during conciliation.

After a departmental enquiry, the appellant’s services were terminated by order dated 30 June 2021. Instead of directly challenging the dismissal, the appellant filed an application under Section 33A before the Labour Court, Dewas, alleging violation of Sections 9A, 25F and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Labour Court registered the application as a reference. This was challenged by the management, and by order dated 17 November 2022, the High Court set aside the proceedings, granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application under Section 10 before the Conciliation Officer, while expressly keeping the issue of jurisdiction open.

Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore, made a reference dated 14 March 2023 to the Labour Court. The said reference was challenged by the management. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellant was not a “workman”. The review petition was dismissed, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Judgment

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

The Court identified the central question as whether a Medical Representative/Sales Promotion Officer falls within the scope of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court relied upon a consistent line of authority beginning with May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen, Western India Match Co. Ltd., and Burmah Shell, and culminating in the Constitution Bench judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737.

The Court reiterated that, as settled by the Constitution Bench, a person must be employed to do work of the categories expressly mentioned in Section 2(s), namely manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, to qualify as a workman. The work of sales promotion and canvassing is distinct from these categories, and incidental or ancillary duties cannot alter the dominant nature of employment.

The Bench placed specific reliance on paragraph 1 of the appellant’s own statement of claim, wherein his duties were described as visiting doctors and medical stores, promoting medicines, booking orders, and coordinating supply through stockists. On the basis of these admitted pleadings, the Court held that the appellant was engaged in sales promotion activities and not in any category of work contemplated under Section 2(s).

The Court further followed binding Division Bench decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, including Novartis India Ltd. v. Vipin Shrivastava and Petcare Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd., and noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed against the latter. The Court clarified that judgments taking a contrary view had either misread H.R. Adyanthaya or were distinguishable on facts.

Accordingly, it was held that Medical Representatives/Sales Promotion Officers are not “workmen”, and therefore the reference made by the State Government itself was without jurisdiction. No illegality was found in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Access the official judgement here

Case Name

Jyoti Kumar v. M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd. and Others

Neutral Citation

2026:MPHC-IND:1897

Date

21 January 2026

Bench

Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

Hon’ble Shri Justice Alok Awasthi