Reaffirmation that Medical Sales Representatives Are Not “Workmen” under Section 2(s) ID Act and the Limited Scope of Writ Review over Labour Court Findings

Introduction

In SH. Samarendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 2025 DHC 8918, the Delhi High Court (per Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Labour Court order that had rejected the petitioner’s industrial dispute on the ground that a medical sales representative (Professional Sales Representative or PSR) does not qualify as a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The Court restored the writ petition (earlier dismissed in default) but, on merits, upheld the Labour Court’s view, primarily relying on the Supreme Court’s larger Bench ruling in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737, and the settled contours of supervisory review under Article 226 articulated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24.

The key issues before the High Court were:

• Whether a medical sales representative falls within any of the enumerated categories of “workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act.
• Whether, in light of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (as amended in 1986) (SPE Act), such sales personnel can nevertheless claim the status of “workman” for ID Act purposes.
• The proper limits of High Court interference with Labour Court findings in writ jurisdiction.

The parties were the petitioner-employee, Mr. Samarendra Das, a PSR since 1996, and the respondent-employer, Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., a medicare company. The Labour Court had framed the “workman” issue, considered the pleadings and evidence (including the petitioner’s own admissions), and applied binding precedent to hold that the petitioner was not a “workman.” The High Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

After restoring the petition (unopposed by the respondent for expediency), the High Court proceeded to decide the substantive challenge. Emphasizing that the issue of whether medical sales representatives are “workmen” is no longer res integra, the Court endorsed the Labour Court’s reliance on the five-Judge Bench decision in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. The petitioner’s own pleadings and testimony established that he was appointed and confirmed as a Professional Sales Representative, tasked with meeting doctors, disseminating product and medical information, and promoting prescriptions — duties characteristic of sales promotion roles, as opposed to manual, clerical, or technical work captured by Section 2(s).

Reiterating Adyanthaya’s ratio, the Court held that:

• Sales promotion employees like medical representatives are not “workmen” under Section 2(s) because their work is not “manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory.”
• The interpretive principle of ejusdem generis precludes stretching “skilled” or “operational” to cover sales promotion functions.
• Past attempts to read Section 2(s) expansively (e.g., S.K. Verma, Delton Cable, Ciba Geigy) were expressly disapproved by larger Benches and not adopted by subsequent legislative amendments.

The High Court also stressed that, in writ proceedings, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view on factual determinations unless clear jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or manifest error of law is shown (Syed Yakoob). Finding none, it declined interference and dismissed the writ petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• H.R. Adyanthaya & Ors. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 737

  The cornerstone of the decision. The Supreme Court clarified that to qualify as a “workman,” the employee must be engaged in one of the specified categories in the main body of Section 2(s): manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory. It rejected the argument that anyone not covered by the four exceptions automatically becomes a “workman.”

  On medical representatives, Adyanthaya held they are not doing “skilled,” “technical,” or “operational” work as understood in Section 2(s) and that their sales promotion functions are distinct from the enumerated categories. Importantly, it noted that legislative amendments adding “unskilled,” “skilled,” and “operational” after the SPE Act did not adopt an expansive, catch-all reading of “workman,” undercutting contrary two-Judge Bench decisions (S.K. Verma, Delton Cable, Ciba Geigy).

  The Labour Court and the High Court faithfully applied this ratio to the petitioner’s admitted role as a PSR.

• May & Baker; WIMCO; Burmah Shell; A. Sundarambal

  These earlier three-Judge Bench decisions (May & Baker (1961) 2 LLJ 94; WIMCO (1964) 3 SCR 560; Burmah Shell (1970) 3 SCC 378; A. Sundarambal (1988) 4 SCC 42) consistently rejected the view that Section 2(s) covers all employees except those expressly excluded. Adyanthaya reaffirmed this line and treated later expansive two-Judge Bench readings as incorrect. The High Court, citing Adyanthaya, implicitly carried forward this doctrinal thread.

• Bharat Bhawan Trust v. Bharat Bhawan Artists’ Association, (2001) 7 SCC 630 and T.P. Srivastava v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 281

  Bharat Bhawan Trust, while dealing with artists, drew support from T.P. Srivastava’s holding that a salesman employed for canvassing and promoting sales (involving strategic market engagement, customer studies, and supervision of local sales staff) is not a “workman,” as such duties neither fit “manual,” “skilled,” “unskilled,” nor “clerical.” The High Court quoted this to analogize sales promotion roles (including medical representatives) as being outside Section 2(s).

• Petcare, Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Medical and Sales Representatives Association, 2006 SCC OnLine MP 23

  A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court took the same view regarding medical and sales representatives. The respondent invoked Petcare to demonstrate a consistent High Court approach aligned with Adyanthaya.

• Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24

  Cited for the standard of writ review: the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue certiorari is supervisory, not appellate. It may correct jurisdictional errors, legal errors apparent on the face of the record, or fundamental procedural irregularities, but cannot re-weigh evidence or revisit factual sufficiency.

• Rajasthan High Court Division Bench decisions

  The petitioner had relied on Rajasthan High Court decisions (Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Union v. Industrial Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (87) FLR 563; and Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. v. Labour Court, Udaipur, 2001). However, the settled binding position as per the Supreme Court in Adyanthaya prevailed, rendering contrary or broader High Court approaches untenable.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in two interlocking steps: classification under Section 2(s), and the scope of writ interference.

1. Classification under Section 2(s) ID Act
   • The petitioner’s pleadings and evidence unequivocally established his role as a Professional Sales Representative. He admitted to:
     • Undergoing training on the employer’s products;
     • Meeting doctors to inform them about new and existing medicines and convey technical information;
     • Facilitating prescriptions based on such information;
     • Not directly selling products in the market; and
     • Performing functions that require specialized knowledge and training.
   • Applying Adyanthaya, the Court held that such duties are paradigmatic sales promotion functions, conceptually distinct from the enumerated categories in Section 2(s). The ejusdem generis construction prevents “skilled” or “operational” from being read so broadly as to swallow up sales promotion or canvassing roles. Hence, medical representatives are not “workmen.”
   • On Section 6(2) of the SPE Act, the Court followed Adyanthaya’s analysis that the SPE Act does not amend or expand the definition of “workman” in Section 2(s). Whatever interface the SPE Act has with the ID Act, it does not transform sales promotion employees into “workmen” for Section 2(s) classification. That was dispositive for the petitioner’s claim, which hinged on Section 2(s) status.
2. Supervisory nature of writ review
   • Relying on Syed Yakoob, the Court emphasized that it does not sit in appeal over Labour Court determinations. Absent jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or an error of law apparent on the record, reappreciation of facts is impermissible.
   • Here, there was no dispute on the foundational facts; the Labour Court applied binding Supreme Court precedent to those facts. No ground for certiorari was made out. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Impact

The decision has several practical and doctrinal implications:

• Continued clarity for sales promotion roles: It fortifies the line of authority that medical representatives and similar sales promotion personnel do not qualify as “workmen” under Section 2(s) ID Act. Labour Courts are likely to continue dismissing Section 2(s)-based claims by medical representatives absent exceptional factual matrices.
• Fact-sensitive boundaries remain: Not all “sales” designations are dispositive. If, on evidence, an employee primarily performs clerical, manual, or other enumerated duties under Section 2(s), classification may differ. But sales canvassing/promotion, as a primary function, will typically fall outside Section 2(s).
• Strategic litigation choices: Employees in sales promotion roles should calibrate their remedies. Claims premised on ID Act “workman” status face a high bar. They may instead explore:
  • Rights and protections (if any) available under the SPE Act’s own framework;
  • Statutory benefits under other labour or welfare laws that do not hinge on “workman” status;
  • Contractual remedies (civil suits) for wrongful termination or breach of service conditions; and
  • Reliefs under Shops and Establishments enactments, where applicable.
  The present judgment, however, does not pronounce on the full remedial architecture of the SPE Act; it confines itself to the Section 2(s) classification under the ID Act.
• Reinforcement of writ discipline: By reiterating the Syed Yakoob limits, the judgment signals that writ courts will not re-try industrial disputes. This promotes procedural economy and respects tribunal expertise, especially where binding precedent resolves the substantive issue.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act: The statute lists categories of work — manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory. To be a “workman,” the employee’s primary duties must fit one of these categories. Merely not being a manager or not falling within the stated exceptions does not suffice.
• Sales Promotion Employee (SPE): Typically includes roles like medical representatives who promote products to professionals (e.g., doctors) and facilitate prescriptions or sales indirectly through advocacy and information, rather than directly selling goods to customers.
• Ejúsdem generis: A rule of interpretation: when general words follow specific ones in a list, the general words are read in the context of the specific ones. Here, “skilled” is read in the same genus as other listed categories, and not as a catch-all covering sales promotion.
• Res integra: A legal issue that is not yet settled. The Court observed this issue is not res integra — meaning it is settled by higher precedent (Adyanthaya).
• Writ of certiorari (Article 226): A supervisory writ. The High Court can correct jurisdictional or legal errors on the face of the record but will not re-assess evidence as an appellate court would.
• Section 6(2) SPE Act interface: The SPE Act interfaces with certain labour laws, including the ID Act. However, as clarified by Adyanthaya and applied here, it does not amend or expand the “workman” definition in Section 2(s) ID Act to include sales promotion employees as “workmen” simpliciter.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in SH. Samarendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. does not forge new doctrine; rather, it faithfully reaffirms the Supreme Court’s controlling authority in H.R. Adyanthaya that medical sales representatives are not “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Given the petitioner’s admitted job profile — hallmark features of sales promotion, not manual/clerical/technical/operational work — the Labour Court’s dismissal was unassailable. Equally, the High Court correctly declined to re-evaluate factual findings or depart from binding precedent under the constrained lens of Article 226 supervisory review.

Key takeaways:

• Medical representatives and analogous sales promotion roles generally fall outside Section 2(s) “workman” status.
• Section 6(2) of the SPE Act does not rewrite the ID Act’s “workman” definition; claims pegged on Section 2(s) must still meet its categorical test.
• High Courts will not re-try industrial disputes in writs; errors must be jurisdictional, legal, or procedural in the Syed Yakoob sense.
• Sales promotion employees should carefully consider the appropriate statutory or contractual pathways for relief rather than presuming ID Act remedies premised on “workman” status.

In the broader legal landscape, this judgment consolidates doctrinal clarity and procedural restraint: it aligns tribunal adjudication with Supreme Court precedent and reinforces the disciplined use of writ jurisdiction in labour matters.

Case Details

• Case: SH. Samarendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
• Citation: 2025 DHC 8918
• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
• Date of Decision: 06 October 2025
• Procedural Note: Writ petition restored (second restoration) and dismissed on merits; Labour Court’s order sustained.