Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

FACTS

3) PHL is an incorporated company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling and distribution of pharmaceutical products. It had employed several employees in sales promotions activities including Medical Representatives (MR). According to PHL, several MRs were offered promotions to the post of Business Development Manager (BDM) in the year 2003, which post was subsequently redesignated as Territory Business Manager (TBM). It is contended that TBMs of PHL used to report to Area Business Manager, who in turn reported to Zonal Business Managers. Those Sales Promotions Employees (SPE), who rejected the offer of promotion continued to perform the work of SPE on the post of MR. According to the PHL, about 180 MRs accepted promotion offers and only few of them, who refused promotion offers continued to work as MRs. It is PHL's contention that duties and responsibilities of MR are distinct from that of TBM. At that time there were following five unions functioning in the PHL:-

    1989 3 SCC 191

    2011 (11) SCC 122

    2002 (3) CLR 947


                                   27 February 2026



 NEETA SAWANT                                                                  WPL No.29514 of 2014




9)                 Mr. Sawant, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for

Abbott would submit that the operative directions in the Award, apart from being inconsistent, are wholly inexecutable so far as Abbott is concerned. That the impugned Award is beyond the terms of Reference. He submits that only 180 MRs in employment of PHL had opted for promotion to the post of BDM, later redesignated as TBM and none of them were in Respicare Division of PHL, which has come over to Abbott. That therefore none of the TBMs are transferred to Abbott nor Abbott has ever employed any MR or TBM and ME in Respicare Division. Mr. Sawant has further submitted that the Respondent-Union has no locus standi to represent any of the employees of Abbott. None of them is party to the Reference to whom Respondent-Union represents or employed by Abbott. That last settlement between the Respondent-Union and PHL was of the year 1999 to which Abbott was not a party. That therefore the Industrial Tribunal has grossly erred in directing implementation of settlement terms by the Petitioner. That BDM-TBMs and MEs of PHL did not authorise the Respondent-Union to raise any demand nor prosecute the Reference. That the impugned Award adversely affects service conditions of TBMs and MEs, who are not parties to the Reference. Mr. Sawant would accordingly pray for setting aside the impugned Award.

24) In any event, I do not propose to delve deeper into the aspect of comparison of duties and responsibilities of TBMs/MEs and MRs on account of faulty nature of complaint raised by the Respondent- Union. As observed above, the demand was not raised on behalf of TBMs and MEs for the purpose of grant of designation as MRs or for ensuring collective bargaining through unions. The demand was made on behalf of MRs who wanted pulling back of individuals promoted as TBMs and MEs so as to form homogeneous class of sales promotion employees which could be unioned. The demand ought to have been raised by TBMs and MEs if they had a grievance that they are deliberately denied the status of SPEs with a view to ensure that they do not form union and collectively bargain for their rights. If and when TBMs and MEs raise 27 February 2026 NEETA SAWANT WPL No.29514 of 2014 such dispute, the issue of validity of their promotion/redesignation on posts different than MRs can be considered.

Conclusions

39) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the very demands made by the Respondent-Union, on which the Reference was made, were faulty. The alleged grouse of reduction of unionised cadre by deliberately redesignating SPEs as TBMs and MEs ought to have been raised by the individuals who have been so designated as TBMs and MEs. MRs cannot insist that their erstwhile cohorts should not be promoted or redesignated as TBMs and MEs and must continue as MRs to ensure that they remain members of the Respondent-Union To paraphrase, the person who is denied the right of forming union must complain and raise demand in that regard. It is not for the individuals who are already in unionised cadre to pull back the promoted individuals so as to ensure that their union survives. As of now, no individual who is promoted/re- designated/directly recruited as TBM/ME has raised any grievance that they actually perform the work of SPE and that therefore they must be permitted to form a Union. It will however be open for them to exercise their remedies in that regard, if they have any grievance. However, most certainly MRs cannot be permitted to fight their battle. In fact, if closely scrutinized, it appears that the objection behind seeking to fight the battle on behalf of TBMs and MEs is MR's own interest. Those individuals, who have chosen to remain on the post of MRs, are possibly aggrieved by reduction of cadre of MRs with passage of each day and the 27 February 2026 NEETA SAWANT WPL No.29514 of 2014 activity of the union virtually coming to a standstill. They feel aggrieved by the action of the management in recruiting new appointees directly on redesignated posts of TBMs and MEs. They complain that TBM and ME are nothing but glorified designations deliberately given to SPEs performing the same duties as MRs. If this is the position, nothing prevents TBMs and MEs from raising the complaint that they fall into the category of SPEs. Thus, those promoted/redesignated/recruited on the posts of TBMs or MEs can file necessary proceedings for declaration that they fit into definition of the term SPEs. However, such declaration cannot be sought by MRs or by their Union. This is the basic fault-line in the demands made by the Respondent-Union and in the Reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, which the Tribunal has failed to appreciate.