In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Labour Court decision. The Allahabad High Court acquitted a medical representative who was terminated from his duty for allegedly submitting false reports about doctor visits. The honorable court simultaneously upheld the classification of medical representatives as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1975.
The case had Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. as the petitioner and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as the respondent, along with two other respondents. The judgement was passed by a single bench consisting of Justice Alok Mathur. He passed an order stating that after May 16, 1987, all medical representatives were declared workmen without any limitations on their wages or upon the capacity in which they were engaged or employed.
The case was put up for hearing at the court for the appointment of a workman as medical representative by the petitioner, who submitted false call reports of visiting doctors and chemists in two instances. In this case, respondent no. 2 was recruited by Nicholas Piramal Ltd. as a workman on April 10, 1973. Later, on September 22, 1982, he was appointed a trainee technical representative and, further, a medical representative.
The petitioner further reported that during his tenure, he was found to be falsely submitting his call reports for a period between October 5, 1986, and October 18, 1986. He was asked to explain his misconduct through a letter on December 7, 1996, and an inquiry was instituted later. After the issuance of the charge sheet on April 4, 1997, respondent No. 2 defended himself. The case proceeding went for May 6th and 7th, 1988, but the respondent did not appear, and the next date was fixed for June 10, 1988, which subsequently went unattended by him. Thereafter, the respondent appeared for the next hearing on June 6, 1998, and filed his documents.
Subsequently, in the inquiry, the charges were proved against respondent no. 2, and he was given a show cause notice along with a copy of the inquiry. He was finally dismissed from the services through an order dated March 12, 1999, and was paid a compensation of Rs 1,64,346 along with a one-month salary. Respondent No. 2 appealed but was turned over by the competent authorities.
The matter was put up at the Labour Court, which observed that there was no record of statements from the doctors which the respondent no. 2 had claimed to have visited. The Court also said that the findings in the domestic inquiry were arbitrary and illegal and reversed the order of dismissal. The petitioner then appealed to the High Court, stating that they should be allowed to present additional evidence. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 2 had participated in a worker’s union meeting on the said dates and hence could not have visited the doctors and chemists on the said dates.
Justice Mathur observed that the evidence presented before the Labour Court proved that respondent no. 2 had visited the doctors on the said dates, and the statements of the doctors were not recorded in the domestic inquiry.
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea and upheld the Labour Court’s decision that the allegations were not proven against the medical representative.
(Input from various media sources)
(Rehash/Dr. Sushmita Ganguli)
