- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Banking & Credit and Media & Information industries
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6347, reaffirmed that a medical or sales representative employed in the pharmaceutical sector does not qualify as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act").
BACKGROUND
The Petitioner, a former employee of the Respondent company (Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.), had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 5 September 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka, which dismissed his claim on the ground that he was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
The Petitioner had been employed as a Professional Sales Representative and contended that his termination was illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court rejected the claim, holding that his duties were of a technical and promotional nature, not covered by the statutory definition of "workman."
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Petitioner argued that his role primarily involved promoting pharmaceutical products, which required technical knowledge but did not vest him with managerial or supervisory powers, and hence he ought to be treated as a workman.
The Respondent contended that the Petitioner's duties were confined to marketing, sales promotion, and liaising with medical professionals — functions that are neither manual, clerical, nor operational. It further relied upon the Judgment in the matter of H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a sales/medical representative was not a "workman" under the Act.
ISSUES CONSIDERED
Whether a medical or sales representative engaged in promoting pharmaceutical products qualifies as a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
HELD
The Hon'ble Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition, held that:
- The issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., which categorically held that medical representatives do not fall under any of the categories enumerated in Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
- The Petitioner's duties were promotional and sales-oriented, and therefore outside the ambit of "workman."
- The Court also reiterated that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum, and can only intervene where the Labour Court's findings are perverse or contrary to law (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24).
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the Labour Court's order upheld.
MHCO COMMENT
This decision reiterates the settled legal position that medical representatives and sales executives engaged in promotional functions are not "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgment reinforces the principle that professional roles involving sales promotion or client engagement fall outside the protective framework of industrial labour laws in India. Employers in the pharmaceutical and allied industries may therefore continue to treat such positions as non-workman categories for the purposes of employment disputes.
This article was released on 30 October 2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
