H.R. ADYANTHAYA versus SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 11-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN, G.N. RAY, N.P. SINGH
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

H.R. ADYANTHAYA 
v. 
SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD. 
AUGUST 11, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN, G.N. RAY 
AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Labour Law : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
A 
B 
Section 2(S }-Workman-Nature of work-Must be any of seven 
C 
categories-Not covered by exceptions-Medical representative-Held : Not. 
workman. 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971. 
Section 3(18}-Workman-Medical representative-Held : Not work· 
man. 
The question that fell for consideration in these matters was whether 
D 
the 'medical representatives' as they are commonly known; are workmen 
according to the definition of ''workman" under Section 2(s) of the In· E 
dustrial Disputes Act. 1947. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the definition of 
workman under the ID Act includes all employees except those covered by 
the four exceptions to the said definition; and that the medical repre· F 
sentatives perform the duties of skilled and technical nature and, there· 
fore, they are workmen; 
In W.P. 5259 of 1980 ou behalf of the petitioner, it was contended 
that the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service ) Act, 1976 
(The 'SPE Act"}, as it was originally enacted, made a distinction between G 
employees drawing wages not exceeding Rs. 750 per mensem and those 
drawing wages above this amount which is violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. 
In C.A. No. 818 of 1992 the dispute arose out of transfers of the H 
573 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A appellants effected on 16th February, 1988. The complaint was made to the 
Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the "Maharashtra Act"), 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Medical repre-
sentatives are workmen within the Maharashtra Act. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
Held : 1. A person to be a workman under th Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, as amended, (the "ID Act") must be employed to do the work of 
any of the categories, viz., manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operation-
C al, clerical or supervisory. It is not enough that he is not covered by either 
of the four exceptions to the definition. [589-D] 
May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. B Their workmen, (1962) LIJ 94; Western 
India Match Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964] 3 SCR 560 andBwma Shell 
Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India v. Bunna Shell Management Staff 
D Association & Ors., (1971] 2 SCR 758, approved. 
E 
S.K. Venna v. Mahesh Chandra &Anr, (1983] 3 SCR 799; VedPrakash 
Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P} Ltd., [1984] 3SCR169 andArkal Govind 
Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay, [1985] Supp.I SCR 282, held 
inapplicable. 
2. The word "skilled' in the context in which it is used will n11t Include 
the work of a medical representative. As regards the 'technical' nature of 
their work, it bas been expressly rejected by this Court in 'Bwma Shelf 
case. Hence medical representatives are not workmen within the meaning 
F 
of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. (592-E, D] 
I . 
G 
. 3. It is permissible to classify workmen on the basis of their income 
although the work that they do is of same nature. The protective umbrella 
need not cover all the workmen doing the particular type of work. It can 
extend to them in stages. (593-H; 594-A] 
4. The medical representatives are not workmen within the meaning 
of the Maharashtra Act and the complaint made to the Industrial Court 
under Act was not maintainable. (596-F] 
M/s. Kasturi and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Shri N. Salivateeswaran & Anr., 
H 
(1959] SCR 1, held inapplicable. 
H.R.ADYANTHAYAv. SANDOZ[SAWANT,J.). 
575 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal A 
No. 235 of 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.1980 of the Industrial 
Court at Bombay in Complaint (ULP) No. 66/78 
With W.P. (C) No. 5259/80, C.A. No. 242/90, C.A. No. 818/92 and B 
S.L.P. (C) No. 5641/83. 
Shekhar Naphade, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Soli J. Sorabjee, P.K. Rele, 
H.S. Parihar, Kuldip Parihar, N.N. Goswamy, R.P. Srivastava, Arvind Kr. 
Sharma, C.V.S. Rao, A.S. Bhasme, Jitendra Sharma, A.K. Sanghi, R.F. 
Nariman, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Prerna Kohli, P. Gaur, B.K. Pal, Ms. Gunwant C 
Dara, Ashok Desai, J.P Carna, LR. Singh and Mukul Mudgal for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SAWANT, J. The question that falls for consideration in these mat- D 
ters is whether the 'me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.