c

 c



 c  



   



  


in India and in many other countries, aggressive marketing o f breast milk

substitutes by commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of

commercial interests triggered campaigns for promotion of breast ±feeding. the

promotion of breast milk substitutes by medical professionals challenged

traditional breast feeding practices. The baby food industry very cleverly sought

to promote its products through health-care facilities.

in India , in wake of global developments with regard to the promotion of

breast-feeding, the infant milk foods and feeding bottles bill was passed in the

Lok Sabha in 1989. In 1992, the µinfant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and

infant foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) act¶ was

finally passed. It came into force from 1 August 1993. The Act expressly

prohibits:

i distribution of free samples of infant milk foods and feeding bottles to

mothers;

i advertising to public;

i promotion in health care facilities;

i distribution of gifts or samples to health workers;

i promotion of words and pictures that idealize bottle feeding;

i advice to mothers by company sales staff;

i financial assistance to health organizations or associations of doctors to

organize conferences, seminars, and so on; and

i Incentives to sales personnel/ retailers based on volume of sales.

And Indian govt. has authorized four voluntary organizations to monitor the

Act. These are the c
 

    ,   


 c

 

c
   ,   


  c    c
   

 


 
  .and Breast-feeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI).

However, Wockhardt ltd, in spite of the 1992 regulation went on to distribute

free samples, according to the study conducted by UNICEFACASH. The study

revealed that the incidence of free samples prevailed all over India- it was

highest in the country¶s capital, New Delhi. Seventy two percent of the free

samples were given by Nestle, twenty four percent Dalmia Dairy, 19%

Wockhardt and 18% by Raptokos Brett,

Îc      



‘N 8 May 2003 more than 75000 medical repres entatives from all over India

participated in a 50-day relay strike in Kerala under the aegis of the Federation

of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India (FMRAI) protesting

against the unethical policies of pharmaceutical companies which (1) denied

the fundamental trade union rights of the members; (2) pursued policies that

treated sales promotion employees as vendible commodities and resorted to

µhire and fire¶ and (3) increased the work-load on employees.

However, it was found that Wockhardt Ltd has dismissed more than 77

medical representatives because of declining sales. it had also affected large

number of transfers of sales promotion employees for the same reason.

The Wockhardt management with a view to pre-empting the strike , issued an

office order on 6 February 2003. It made it known that the management would

not in any way have any truck with the FMRAI¶s call by an employee would be

considered an undisciplined act and appropriate action would be taken against

such employee.

 c 
c
  

Îc 




Wockhardt Ltd has been increasingly pressing the employees, particularly the

field workers. ‘n the one hand, field workers are being thrown out of regular

employment with impunity while, on the other hand, casualizati on of field

workers is on the rise, accompanied by low wages as well as poor working and

service conditions.

 c 


c c


Apart from indulging in violation of basic trade union rights of employees,

Wockhardt management also victimized the company¶s field workers, who had

to face medical practitioners, traders and the general public, when the company

resorted to several unethical trade practices hIn this regard FMRAI wrote a letter

to the company chairman and requested his personal attention in the matter of

unfair sales and marketing pract ices indulged by the management . But the

management resorted to derecognition of the union.


     c


 




 




Infant food samples should conform to labeling requirements and every infant

food should comply with section 6 and rule 7 and 8 of the 1992 Act.

However Wockhardt distributes free samples of µDexrice¶ to doctors promoting

it as delicious weaning food with enriched vitamins. Even though free samples

of infant foods are permitted by law, samples packs of Dexrice, an infant food

from Wockhardt do not conform to labeling requirements.



 c  

   

 

cc 
 


A µnon-existent¶ NG‘ linked to a senior Wockhardt executive attempted to use

the public interest litigation route in the Supreme Court to derail the launch of

insulin by its rival, Biocon, and has focused the public¶s attention on the

business of clinical trials.

 

 
c


After identifying the problem we analyzed that Wockhardt Ltd have involved

itself in so many unethical practices. However they very well familiar with the

µInfant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (regulation of

Production, Supply and Distribution) Act¶, they distributed free samples. They

should stop this. They have refused to recognize the employee association. They

refused to accept the rights of employees for µfreedom of association¶. It is

fundamental right of any one to make the association, union .

c   

The Pharmaceutical Company should follow the rules regulation made by govt.

they should follow the business ethics. And what they are promising to public

stick on it. Company should follow Biotechnological, environmental, social

ethics. Here we have seen the difference between precepts and practices of

Wockhardt Ltd.

They should very clear in labeling, employee security, and social responsibility .

c c
 

The above instances of unethical practices by one of India¶s leading

pharmaceutical companies Wockhardt, reveals the divergence that exists

between precepts and practices. Unethical companies tend to use code of

business conduct and ethics as a mask to show a humane face to the outside

world, while they adopt all kinds of unethical practices in their workplace.

c
 c   



Here Wockhardt putted public, govt. and consumers in dark. They have

involved themselves in so many unethical businesses as like selling milk

products as a substitute of breast milk, victimization of employees, lack of

service security, unethical sales practices, promoting health care system through

improperly labeled samples and harassing competitors in matters of clinical

trials. Even though they have written in their business philosophy, ³Creating

value by understanding and communicating with its customers and business

partners´, and in vision µTo be the most admired Indian Health Care Group.

This type of things are unexpected by a leading global and distinguish company.