Case Details: Sh. Samarendra Das vs. Win Medicare (P.) Ltd. [2025] 181 taxmann.com 184 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
-
Gautam Kumar Laha, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Ms Pooja Sood, Aniket Singh, Jitesh Pandey, Hrishabh Tiwari & Naman Arora, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner was employed as a sales executive/professional sales representative with the respondent company. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It was noted that the petitioner was not engaged in clerical or menial work but was a qualified graduate with a specialisation and had received specialised training for his field of work. There was, therefore, no doubt that the work performed by the petitioner involved specialised skills acquired through training imparted by the respondent company. In any event, this aspect had not been denied by the petitioner.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
List of Cases Referred to
- H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. 1994 taxmann.com 2463 (SC) (para 5)
- Petcare, Division of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Medical and Sales Representatives Association Bhopal 2006 SCC OnLine MP 23 (para 9)
- Bharat Bhawan Trust v. Bharat Bhawan Artists’ Association 2001 taxmann.com 4991 (SC) (para 12.1)
- T.P. Srivastava v. National Tobacco Co. of India Limited (1992) 1 SCC 281 (para 12.1)
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 (para 15).
The post Medical Sales Representative Not a ‘Workman’ Under ID Act | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
