Jyoti Kumar vs M/S Zydus Healthcare Ltd & Ors.

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

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 Stsate Government to the Labour Court was within the jurisdiction. Against the said judgement, review filed by the appellant has also been dismissed.

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).

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 dated 30.06.2021.

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.

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 Conciliation Officer shall decide the matter in accordance with the law on its own merits including objection of the respondent regarding jurisdiction of the Labour Officer.

Thereafter, the appellant moved to the Conciliation Officer, Dewas and filed an application under Section 10 of the Act dated 05.12.2022 with a prayer inter-alia to set aside his termination to which the management submitted a detailed reply dated 06.12.2022 with a preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction and the appellant admittedly being a ‘Medical Representative’ or Sales Promotion Employee and therefore, not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, without considering the same, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore passed the impugned reference dated 14.03.2023 no.70/7--/2023/8123-30. Thereafter, Labour Court, Dewas has initiated the proceedings as Ref. No. 12/2023; “Sh. Jyoti Kumar Sharma vs. M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd. & Ors.” on the impugned reference order.

The impugned reference order was challenged on the ground that Medical representative/sales promotion officer is not a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The learned Single Judge held that in Paragraph-1 of Annexure-P-4, i.e. the statement of claim of appellant states that he is continuously working with the respondent/company as the Medical Representative since 1997 vide appointment letter dated 03.03.1997. The description of his work of Sales Promotion Officer is mentioned to contact the Doctors and Medical Store Proprietor to provide the sale of medicines and accept the booking orders from the Medical Store Promoters, and Doctors forward the same to the stockist for supply of the medicines. This nature of his work clearly shows that he was required to perform a duty of skilled or technical nature and therefore he was not a "Workman" and dismissed the petition referring the judgment passed in the case of Samat Kumar Vs M/s Parke Davis India Ltd reported in 1997 (2) JLJ 353. The review was also dismissed, hence, present intra-court appeal is filed.

On 11.12.2025, counsel for the respondent argued that the issue "whether Medical Representative/Sales Promotion Officer falls under the category of Workman or not" has already been settled in various judgments by this Court/co-ordinate bench and the Apex Court. The authorised person for the petitioner had taken time to go through the same and then to argue.