Medical Representative Is Not 'Workman' Under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a medical representative is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall apply...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a medical representative is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall apply to sales promotion employees as they apply to workmen within the meaning of that Act.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“…this Court has no reason to take any other view from a view that a 'Medical Representative is not a workman' or to follow a view taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nicholas Piramal India (supra) since findings therein were not based on correct reading of H.R. Adyanthaya (supra).”
The question before the Court was whether a medical representative is a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of a coordinate bench at Lucknow in M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. And others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko and others, on Supreme Court's decision in H.R. Adyanthaya and others vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others, and on a coordinate bench decision in M/S Pfizer Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
Counsel for the respondents relied on S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. U.P. Pademwar and others, Novartis India Ltd. vs. Vipin Srivastava and others, Sh. Samrendra Das vs. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and Jyoti Kumar vs. M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd and others.
Dealing first with the coordinate bench decision in Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., which had held that medical representatives would be deemed to be workmen, the Court held,
“….that finding returned in paragraphs 31-33 of it that medical representative would be deemed to be a workman is not based on correct reading of H.R. Adhyanthaya (supra).”
On the Supreme Court's decision, the Court observed that the direction there for the employee's complaint to be treated as an industrial dispute had been passed in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, and was therefore not a precedent.
“The Supreme Court has held that medical representatives are not workmen within the meaning of Maharashtra Act, however, in exercise of Article 142 of Constitution, a direction was passed that complaint of concerned employee be treated as industrial dispute, therefore, it does not hold that it would be treated as a precedence.”
The Court noted that in Novartis India Ltd., a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken note of H.R. Adyanthaya and had overruled a Single Bench decision of that Court which had read it incorrectly. It further noted that a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Nalin Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar had followed the same ratio.
Referring to the statute, the Court observed that though the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 had come into force, its provisions were to take effect on such dates as may be appointed. It held that the amended definition of 'industry', the sub-clause bringing commission payable on the promotion of sales or business into the definition of 'wages', and Section 24, which omits Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act, have not come into force as no notification has been issued till date.
Finding that the issue stood directly covered by authoritative decisions of three Division Benches of two other High Courts, which carried greater persuasive value, the Court held a medical representative is not a workman under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Counsel for Petitioners :- Anurag Pathak, Arun Kumar Singh, Harshit Pathak, Ramesh Kumar Saxena
Counsel for Respondents :- Bidhan Chandra Rai, C.S.C., T.a.siddiaqi