Novartis India Limited Vs. Vipin Shrivastava & others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 75 of 2017, Judgment Date: Oct 11, 2018

Law Laid Down -

• The supervisory capacity necessarily has to be examined keeping in view the manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical work and the person performing such work is a “workman”. Meeting different professionals to promote sale of product of Pharmaceutical Company cannot be said to be manual or clerical work done by the Medical Representatives as it requires knowledge of product, its uses and also persuasive skills. May be, the Medical Representative does not supervise any person but he is the master of his own affairs reporting to Management only in respect of quantification of sales, therefore, a Medical Representative cannot be treated to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. - All India Reserve Bank Employees’ Association and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another, AIR 1966 SC 305; H.R. Adyanthaya and others v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and others (1994) 5 SCC 737; Samat Kumar v. M/s Parke Davis India Ltd., 1997 (2) JLJ 353; Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar (2016) 149 FLR 528 – relied.
• Single Bench decision of this Court in German Remedies Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Bhopal and others (2006 Vol.II, LLJ 8 MP) holding that the Medical Representative is a “workman” is not correct enunciation of law and is, thus, overruled.

Novartis India Limited Vs. Vipin Shrivastava & others