Allahabad HC relief to Medical Representative who was terminated for allegedly lying about doctor visits

Prayagraj: In a recent judgement, the Allahabad High Court came to the rescue of a medical representative who was terminated from his duty for allegedly lying about doctor visits. The court also upheld the classification of medical representatives as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 

A Single Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur ruled "After 06.05.1987 all the medical representatives were declared to be workmen without limitation on their wages thereafter and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged."

In this case, the petitioner was Nicholas Piramal India Ltd and the respondent was Presiding Officer Labour Court And 3 Ors.

The case pertains to the appointment of a workman as a medical representative by the petitioner, who submitted false call reports of visiting Doctors and Chemists for two specific dates.

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that respondent no 2 – a workman was initially appointed as a clerk in M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. with effect from 10.04.1973. Subsequently, by means of an order dated 22.09.1982, he was appointed as trainee technical Representative and further appointed to the post of medical representative.

Also read- What Are You Doing About Abandoned Patients? UP HC Asks State Government

While discharging his duties as Medical Representative, the person was involved in certain acts of misconduct and most specifically submitting false call reports from 05.10.1996 to 18.10.1996 of visiting Doctors and Chemists to whom in fact he has not visited as alleged by the petitioner. For his acts of misconduct, an explanation was sought by means of a letter dated 07.12.1996 and not being satisfied with his explanation a regular enquiry was instituted.

Accordingly, charge sheet was issued to the workman-respondent no. 2 on 04.04.1997. Respondent No. 2 was duly heard in the said proceedings, and he defended himself. The enquiry proceedings were held at New Delhi on 6th and 7th May 1988 but respondent no. 2 did not appear and on his request, the enquiry was fixed for 10.06.1998, but he again did not appear and the matter was adjourned for 23.06.1998. On 23.06.1998, respondent no. 2 appeared and filed his documents. 

The enquiry concluded and the enquiry officer submitted his report where he found all the charges levelled against respondent no. 2 – workman to be proved. The workman was given show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report to which he responded and finally, he was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 12th March 1999 and was paid compensation of Rs.1,64,346/- and one month's salary. Against his termination, the workman-respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the competent authority. 

In its hearing, the Labour Court, among other things, observed that there was no record of statements from the Doctors whom the workman claimed to have visited. It was observed that certificates issued by the Doctors could not have been disbelieved, without any material to the contrary, and accordingly held that the findings recorded by the domestic enquiry were, illegal and arbitrary and consequently the order of dismissal was set aside.

Challenging the Labour Court's decision, the petitioner appealed to the High Court arguing that if the Labour Court believed the internal investigation was unfair and inadequate, the petitioner should have been allowed to present additional evidence.

The petitioner's allegations included the fact that there was a Workers Union meeting on the date(s) in question, in which the workman participated. Thus, he could not have visited Doctors/Chemists on said date.

Upon raising an industrial dispute under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the matter came before the Labour Court. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the domestic enquiry was fair and if the workman had been afforded proper opportunities to defend himself.

In his judgment, Justice Alok Mathur emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in such proceedings. "This Court has also looked into the aforesaid material and is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the findings recorded by the Labour Court," observed the court. 

Addressing the petitioner’s plea for an opportunity to adduce further evidence before the Labour Court, the judge said that “to avail of the benefit of leading evidence before the Labour Court in support of the charges levelled in domestic enquiry, the first condition is that the option in this regard should be exercised by the employer at the time of filing of written statement.”

The court remarked, “Labour Courts have the power to call for any evidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation.”

The court observed that the opportunity to lead further evidence was sought by the petitioner in the written statement. However, the evidence before the Labour Court was conclusive of the fact that the workman had visited Doctors. Moreover, despite repeated requests, the statements of Doctors relied upon by the workman were not recorded in the domestic inquiry.

"In the present writ petition only vain attempt has been made assailing the order of the Labour Court on the ground that it had not granted them opportunity to lead evidence," said the court. 

Moreover, Justice Mathur carefully examined the petitioner’s argument that medical representatives are not ‘workmen’ under Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He clarified, “After the enactment of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, medical representatives are deemed ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act.”

Further, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claims, upholding the Labour Court’s decision that the charges against the medical representative were not proven.

To view the official order click on the link below: