Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in the case of M/s Novartis India Ltd. Vs Sarabhjeet Singh and Anr, Writ Petition Civil Appeal Numbers 11095 of 2015, decided on 04.05.2026, upheld the finding by the Labour Court that the termination of Medical Sales Representative Sarabhjeet Singh was illegal and unjustified. This is because the termination being based on misconduct cannot be equated with a plain termination of contract and should follow natural justice.
Facts of the case
Sarabhjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) was appointed as a Medical Sale Representative (“MSR”) with M/s Sandoz (India) Limited, which subsequently became M/s Novartis India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) on 26th 1985. His terms of employment were considered permanent on 4th June, 1986. It also allowed transfer to any establishment of the management across India.
The Management placed the workman on hold from 5th September, 1995 without stating any cause whatsoever. The next day, 6th September, 1995 when the government of Maharashtra had referred an industrial dispute regarding transfer of MSR’s to the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, the Management sent a letter for transferring the Workman from New Delhi to Ratlam, MP with effect from 9th October, 1995.
The Transfer Orders were issued to the Workman on 5th October, 1995. The Workman filed a representation on 7th October, 1995, praying for deferment on account to the industrial reference pending (Demand No.20). This representation was refused by the management on 13th October, 1995 without affording any interim protection. On 1st November 1995, the services of the Workman were terminated with one month’s salary in lieu of notice. Indeed, no show cause notice, charge sheet nor any domestic inquiry preceded his termination.
The Workman contested the termination of his employment, and after undergoing a process of over 30 years of lengthy process of litigation starting from the Industrial Tribunal Mumbai, to the Bombay High Court ( Single Judge and Division Bench ) and thereafter to the Supreme Court , and hence the dispute was finally sent to Labour Court X-IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Award dated 24th February, 2015 declared the termination as illegal and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with continuous service and 25% back wages from 11th January, 2010. However, The Petitioner has filed a challenge to this Award in the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues Before the HC
- Whether the Respondent qualified as a ‘workman’ with the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether the reference before the Labour Court was maintainable?
- Whether the termination of the Workman, being founded on alleged misconduct, was illegal, unjustified, or disproportionate in law?
- Whether the findings of the Labour Court suffered from perversity, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner argued that the discharge resulted from the deliberate disobedience of the lawful transfer order on the part of the Workman. The case of H.R. Adhyantaya v. Sandoz (India) Limited (1994) SCC 737, was quoted in support of the argument that the workers employed for sales promotion activities were not considered as ‘workmen’ under the IDA.
It was also contended by the Petitioner that the Workman himself admitted his non- compliance in the course of cross-examination, thus proving that there was misconduct on his part. Being final and unchallenged, the transfer order bound the Workman to follow it, and therefore he was disqualified from any remedy by virtue of such disobedience. According to the Petitioner, where there was a confession of misconduct on part of the Workman which was evident, conducting a domestic inquiry would become mere a formality, and even without that, the management could prove its case for termination in the Labour Court by any leading evidence.
On the contrary, the Respondent argued that the course of proceedings clearly proved malafide on part of the petitioner as his work was kept in hold for no reason, an order of transfer was passed on the very next day of making any industrial reference, and he was subsequently dismissed in just eighteen days of his representation being rejected without giving him any notice, charge sheet or any domestic inquiry. The Respondent further argued that even assuming that the non-compliance with the order of transfer constitutes misconduct, it is imperative for there to be a disciplinary enquiry in the Respect thereof.
Decisions and Findings
The Court found that the petition challenging the classification of Workman as a ‘workman’ was brought up very late and its case only during the final arguments and was also devoid of factual basis. This challenge could not be entertained since the Petitioner had earlier itself relied on the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal as conferred by Section 33-A of the IDA in some other matter without any objection regarding the classification of ‘workman’. Otherwise, Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (as amended with effect from 6th May, 1987) provides that ‘field level MSRs who are not engaged in managerial or supervisory capacities shall be considered as “workmen” under the IDA’.
It was held that the Court could not accept the Petitioner’s view regarding the termination being a discharge simpliciter. The Petitioner’s termination letter dated 01.11.1995 clearly indicated that the suit had been filed on account of the breach of the transfer orders, and it was further mentioned in the Petitioner’s own Written Statement that the workman was acting wilfully and in contempt of law and had committed the act “with impunity.” The Petitioner could not take two contradictory positions since they filed their case on the ground of misconduct.
AMLEGALS Remarks
This case is a landmark judicial assertion of the supreme importance of natural justice in the field of Indian labour law. The judgment clearly lays down that the use of the contractual right of termination to hide punitive termination cannot be used by the employer to avoid compliance with the statutory obligations relating to issuance of show cause notice, charge sheet, and domestic inquiry.
The ruling also offers a robust precedent on the expansive interpretation of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in the context of Medical Sales Representatives, whose protection is further reinforced by the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. Employers must remain mindful that the belated raising of a jurisdictional objection, without factual foundation and after conclusion of evidence, will not be entertained by courts.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com