And the contretemps is fast leading to the spectre of a major pullout by drug manufacturers, who suggest that they might have to relocate in other parts of the country if the bill is passed into law.

The amendment seeks to classify MSRs as `workers' within the meaning of the act, thus attempting to work around a 1994 judgment pased by the Supreme Court which classified them as `managers' taking them out of the purview of labour-related acts.

The judgement left them covered by only the Sales Promotion Employees (SPE) Act on the grounds that they cannot be the unskilled and untrained workers they claim to be.

Industrial relations managers and personnel directors of major drug companies fear thatthe reclassification of MSRs as workers under the MRTU & PULP Act will skewer the entire set-up of sales promotion in the pharmaceutical industry as the state of it would accord them special privileges in Maharashtra against those employed elsewhere in the country. MSRs could resist routine transfers whenever such moves stand to affect their other interests, they allege. Moreover, it could also encourage MSRs based outside Maharashtra to seek cover under the state act by litigating in the Bombay High Court on the ground that the drug companies are headquartered in Mumbai.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruling was delivered on a petition filed by an MSR from Sandoz from Karnataka challenging his transfer. The judges had held that the managers' privileges accorded to MSRs did not automatically entitle them to workers' rights.

The bill seeking the amendment, however, was not taken up for discussion in the state Legislatue during the recent Budget Session despite assurances from Minister for Labour Sabir Sheikhthat the government was committed to passing the legislation.

Consequently, both sides now accuse each other of succeeding in influencing the authorities with their lobbying: the industry fears it is only a matter of time before it is passed; MSRs, on the other hand, accuse the pharma industry of putting undue pressure on the government to stall the bill. Leading the charge against the pharmaceutical industry is Ashwin Vyas, chief campaign manager of Pramod Mahajan, currently political adviser to the prime minister. With politics as his other area of interest, Vyas is also president of the Mumbai North-East unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Making no bones about having approached Mahajan, he says he is proud of the little he can do for his colleagues. But, at the moment, he is rather downcast. ``Pramodji agreed to help us but it seems the industry has been more influential with the state government and their lobbying appears to have borne fruit,'' Vyas told Express Newsline.

The industry, onthe other hand, believes it has only a temporary reprieve for Sheikh is not really forthcoming with his assurances that the bill might be stalled. ``It is a political issue. I am helpless,'' he said.

That has both drug manufacturers and MSRs flummoxed. The former ask how unfair labour practices and industrial relations constitute a political issue. Echoes Vyas, ``I do not understand what they mean by `political'. We are merely asking for protection as workmen. The Supreme Court ruling was not conclusive in disqualifying us as workers. We only want the Maharashtra government to redefine it in unambiguous terms.'' But, says the industrial relations manager of a top pharmaceutical firm, that is not strictly true.

The apex court was unambiguous in describing MSRs as more than manual or unskilled people who might qualify for workmen under various laws. It also took them out of the purview of the MRTU & PULP Act, unique to Maharashtra. But Vyas disagrees. ``We are just educated hawkers. We need protection asworkers and managements need fear the Maharashtra government's amendment only if they are resorting to unfair labour practices.'' His ire stems from attempts by some managements to take advantage of the SC ruling: He quotes a circular wherein others were advised to `strike while the iron is hot and move for amendments to the SPE Act to impose obligations and duties on MSRs'.

In defence, industry officials state that MSRs, who could, one day, end up as managing directors, are generally irresponsible, work only limited hours and run other businesses on the side, fudge `calls' to deceased doctors and, what's more, terrorise managerial staff.

The regional manager of a multinational still has an armed escort after he was `terrorised' by MSRs and threatened if he dared ask for accountability from his own sales executives.``We are not governed by working hours, only by the number of calls we make,'' Vyas points out. ``And how can anyone object if we want to run tuitions in our spare time? So who's thechor and who the sahukar?''.

Adds one human resources manager of a top multinational, ``Look what happened in West Bengal: all companies there began quitting in the face of trade union militancy. We just might have to do the same.''