MUMBAI, January 30: The controversy over attempts to include medical sales representatives (MSRs) under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act is threatening to assume alarming proportions with both MSRs associations and the pharmaceutical industry sticking to their guns. Of the estimated 2.75 lakh MSRs in the country, approximately 40,000 are in Maharashtra.Industry sources claim that any such amendment in the act would, besides opening the floodgates of litigation, also go against a Supreme Court judgment of 1994. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had, in the case of HR Adhyantha Vs Sandoz India, ruled that MSRs cannot be considered as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since they are not covered by the connotation of a workman as given in the same act.
A spokesperson of the Federation of Medical Representatives Association of India (FMRAI) has, however, been quoted as saying that the Supreme Court verdict and a subsequent judgement of thePunjab-Haryana high court clearly states that MSRs do not come under the purview of section 2(s) (which defines workman) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, MSRs are clearly covered under the Industrial Disputes Act via Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1976, FMRAI claims.
Industry sources say certain misguided groups of MSRs have, over the recent past, evolved restrictive practices making the functioning of drug companies difficult. In fact, the problem is so severe in certain states like Punjab where diligent MSRs have been threatened and even manhandled, forcing them to file FIRs with the police. One leading pharma company even arranged for security personnel to accompany one such harassed employee.
The restrictive practices allegedly adopted by MSRs include: requirement of seven to 10 days prior notice to be given to an MSR before a manager or supervisor wishes to visit an area of operation; issue of derogatory leaflets and circulars against the employercompany and unwillingness to visit doctors after 3.00 pm (thereby depriving chemists of urgent stocks) and even preventing other MSRs from doing so.
Besides, industry sources say some MSRs resort to false sampling thereby "demoralising other sincere colleagues and creating nuisance value". In fact, sources cited instances of MSRs having laid down details of visits to dead doctors!
FMRAI, on the other hand, claims that it has all along been opposing the unscientific and anarchic methods being adopted by drug companies to increase the workload on MSRs. FMRAI even alleges that manufacturers are using MSRs in assisting them in corrupt practices like drawing false invoices and breakage claims.
Industry sources say companies may be forced to resort to other options for promoting their drugs, if the situation warrants. However, they admit that other alternatives cannot be as as effective as promotion through well qualified and well trained MSRs. "MSRs lend valuable support to our clinical data, explaincontra-indications to doctors and are effective links. No prudent company would want to get rid of them under normal circumstances," sources said.
The industry, which is concentrated in Mumbai and Pune, added that it may be forced to consider a review of its plans or even a relocation of operations outside the state if the MSRs move is successful.
Moreover, sources claim MSRs have a well structured career plan in pharmaceutical companies and have very often risen to top positions.
On the salary front, while the management claims that a MSR could earn as much as Rs 5,000 to 7,500 per month (excluding incentives), FMRAI says that MSRs are paid lower salaries than unskilled workers and even sweepers. To this, industry says the government is empowered to take action against companies paying salaries below minimum wages. Another area of disagreement is that of the transferability of MSRs.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
