Introduction:
In Anil Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523, the Allahabad High Court examined an important question concerning the status of medical representatives under labour laws. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that a medical representative does not fall within the definition of a “workman” under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
The issue before the Court arose from the interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, which provides that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall apply to sales promotion employees in the same manner as they apply to workmen under that Act. The central question was whether this statutory provision automatically brings medical representatives within the definition of “workman” and consequently gives them access to remedies available under industrial disputes law.
The Court was called upon to resolve conflicting views regarding the legal status of medical representatives. While some earlier decisions had treated medical representatives as workmen entitled to protection under industrial laws, other judgments, including decisions of various High Courts relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., had held that medical representatives do not fall within the statutory definition of workman.
The petitioners relied upon decisions supporting the inclusion of medical representatives within the scope of industrial law, whereas the respondents argued that the legal position had already been settled by authoritative judicial precedents holding otherwise. After examining the statutory framework and various judicial decisions, the Allahabad High Court concluded that a medical representative cannot be treated as a workman under the relevant labour statutes.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that medical representatives should be recognised as workmen under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of the provisions of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. It was submitted that Section 6(2) of the 1976 Act specifically extends the protection of industrial dispute laws to sales promotion employees and therefore medical representatives should be entitled to invoke remedies available to workmen.
Placing reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and Others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow and Others, the petitioners contended that medical representatives had already been recognised as falling within the category of workmen. They also relied upon decisions including H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and M/S Pfizer Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others, arguing that the interpretation of the law should favour extending industrial protections to employees engaged in sales promotion activities.
The petitioners submitted that denying the status of workman to medical representatives would defeat the protective purpose behind the Sales Promotion Employees Act. According to them, medical representatives perform duties connected with the promotion and marketing of pharmaceutical products and should therefore receive statutory protection against unfair labour practices and wrongful termination.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the legal position was already settled by the Supreme Court and various High Court judgments holding that medical representatives are not workmen within the meaning of industrial dispute legislation. They relied upon decisions including S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. U.P. Pademwar, Novartis India Ltd. v. Vipin Srivastava, Sh. Samrendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., and Jyoti Kumar v. M/s Zydus Healthcare Ltd.
The respondents submitted that the judgment in H.R. Adyanthaya had clearly recognised that medical representatives do not satisfy the statutory definition of workman. It was argued that although the Supreme Court had granted relief to the employee in that case, the direction was issued under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and could not be treated as a declaration that medical representatives are workmen.
It was further argued that the earlier coordinate Bench decision in Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. had incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling and therefore should not be followed. The respondents contended that decisions of Division Benches of other High Courts, which correctly analysed H.R. Adyanthaya, deserved greater persuasive value.
Court’s Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions and held that medical representatives are not workmen under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
The Court first examined the earlier coordinate Bench decision in M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., which had held that medical representatives would be deemed to be workmen. After analysing the judgment, the Court observed that the finding recorded in that case was not based upon a correct understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted that the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya had specifically held that medical representatives were not workmen within the meaning of the relevant Maharashtra legislation. The Court explained that although the Supreme Court had directed that the employee’s complaint should be treated as an industrial dispute, that direction was issued while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that an order passed under Article 142 to achieve complete justice in a particular case cannot automatically be treated as a declaration of law or a binding precedent on the legal issue involved. Therefore, the relief granted to the employee in H.R. Adyanthaya could not be interpreted to mean that medical representatives are legally recognised as workmen.
The Court further examined the statutory provisions governing sales promotion employees. It noted that although the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 introduced certain changes, including provisions relating to the definition of industry, wages and exclusion of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, these amendments had not been brought into force through any notification. Therefore, the existing legal position continued to apply.
The Court observed that the mere inclusion of sales promotion employees within the framework of the 1976 Act does not automatically alter the definition of “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act. The statutory scheme must be interpreted according to the language used by the legislature, and courts cannot expand the definition beyond its existing scope.
While considering various precedents, the Court relied upon decisions of Division Benches of other High Courts, particularly Novartis India Ltd. v. Vipin Srivastava and Nalin Sinha v. State of Bihar, which had correctly followed the principle laid down in H.R. Adyanthaya. The Court observed that these judgments carried greater persuasive value because they were based upon a proper interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Court also noted that labour law protections are statutory in nature and can only be extended when an employee satisfies the requirements prescribed by the legislation. Since medical representatives do not fall within the definition of workman under the applicable laws, they cannot claim industrial dispute remedies available to workmen.
Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on earlier contrary decisions, the Court held that it had no reason to take a different view from the established legal position that medical representatives are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act framework.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
The judgment provides clarity on the legal status of medical representatives and settles the position that their inclusion as sales promotion employees under the 1976 Act does not automatically confer the status of workmen under industrial dispute laws. The ruling also highlights the importance of correctly interpreting Supreme Court judgments, particularly where relief granted under Article 142 is specific to the facts of an individual case and does not constitute a general declaration of law.