IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne, J.
Kiran P. Pawar - Appellant
Versus
Bata India Ltd - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5862 of 2018
Decided On : 01-11-2023
WORKMAN STATUS - EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Sec. 2(s)), Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Sec. 3(5)), Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 - The court interpreted the definitions of 'workman' and 'employee' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the MRTU & PULP Act, concluding that the salesmen at Bata were indeed 'workmen' due to the nature of their duties, which included manual and clerical tasks, thus affirming the Labour Court's jurisdiction to entertain their complaints. The court also highlighted the limitations of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, which did not apply to Bata's salesmen, reinforcing their status under the ID Act.
Fact of the Case:
Bata India Ltd. decided to operate its showrooms in Mumbai, Thane, and Pune for 7 days a week in 2007, leading to a conflict with some salesmen who refused to comply with the new roster. Bata terminated these salesmen for misconduct, prompting them to file complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court ruled that the salesmen were 'workmen' under the ID Act and 'employees' under the MRTU & PULP Act, leading to Bata's challenge of this ruling in higher courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the salesmen were 'workmen' under the ID Act, emphasizing that their duties included manual and clerical work, which qualified them for this status. The court also found that Bata's terminations were illegal due to lack of proper inquiry and evidence of misconduct.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the salesmen could be classified as 'workmen' under the ID Act, which would determine the Labour Court's jurisdiction to hear their complaints. Additionally, the legality of their terminations and the appropriate compensation for the salesmen were also in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the nature of the salesmen's duties encompassed manual, unskilled, and clerical work, thus qualifying them as 'workmen' under Sec. 2(s) of the ID Act. The court also established that the lack of a proper inquiry into the alleged misconduct rendered the terminations illegal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Bata's petitions challenging the Labour Court's findings and ordered Bata to pay lump-sum compensation to the salesmen in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, given the significant time elapsed since their termination.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Bata India Ltd. (Bata), a familiar name in Indian households, manufacturing footwear for Indians for the last several decades decided to operate its showrooms in Mumbai, Thane and Pune for 7 days in a week in the year 2007 with extended hours to reduce losses. Bata's this decision created a rift between the company and some of its salesmen, who were not willing to work as per roster prepared by Bata. Refusal to work as per roster by its salesperson was treated as misconduct by Bata leading to discontinuation of services of some of its salespersons in the year 2007. The salesmen approached Labour Court by filing complaints under provisions of Sec. 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). Bata questioned the status of such salesman as 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently as 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act. Labour Court has however held those salesmen as workmen under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and 'employees' under MRTU & PULP Act and held the complaints to be maintainable. In two sets of complaints, Bata is before this Court challenging findings on preliminary point of status of salesman as workman. In rest of complaints, the Labour Court, while holding salesman as workman, went into the merits of the termination Orders and has set aside the same directing payment of 50% backwages. Bata has challenged the Labour Court's decision directing reinstatement and 50% backwages whereas the salesmen, on the other hand, are aggrieved by non-grant of 100% backwages and accordingly have filed their own petitions.
2. Thus, Writ Petition Nos. 1815 of 2016 and 2606 of 2018 are filed by Bata challenging the Order of Labour Court on preliminary issue holding the complainants as 'workman' under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and as 'employee' under Sec.
3. (5) of the MRTU and PULP Act. Bata has unsuccessfully tested the decision of Labour Court before the Industrial Court and its Revision Applications are dismissed. The Orders of Industrial Court dismissing the revision applications are also under challenge in Writ Petition No.1815 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2606 of 2018. 3. In respect of 7 Complainants, whose complaints are allowed by Labour Court by setting aside the Order of termination, Bata has filed Writ Petition Nos. 2606/2018, 1758/2018, 2585/ 2018, 2586/2018, 2589/2018, 87/2018, 2588/2018 and 2590/ 2018. In those petitions, Bata has also challenged Orders of the Industrial Court by which its Revision Applications are rejected upholding the Orders passed by the Labour Court.
4. The Complainants are also aggrieved by the decisions of the Labour Court to the extent of denial of 50% backwages and accordingly they have filed Writ Petition Nos. 5668 of 2018, 8024 of 2018, 8026 of 2018, 6953 of 2018, 5766 of 2018, 1489 of 2018 and 5829 of 2018. In their petitions, the Complainants have also challenged Orders of the Industrial Court rejecting their Revision Petitions and upholding the Orders passed by the Labour Court. FACTS
5. Having summarized the exact challenge involved in the group of present petitions, it is necessary to narrate few basic facts. Bata is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Kolkata. It also has retail shop offices at Mumbai, Thane and Pune. It is engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of shoes and footwear and other allied accessories. It had several manufacturing factories, branch offices and at about 1200 retail shops all over the country at the time of filing of the petitions.
6. In showrooms of Bata, there are various categories of employees such as shop manager, salesman, shop assistant, cashier and repairman, etc. The employees involved in the present petitions were employed on the position of 'salesman' in various showrooms of Bata. Bata has given detailed descr



H. R. Adyanthaya and Ors. vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd
May and Baker (India) Ltd. vs. Workman
Miss A. Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu
Pepsico India Holding Private Limited vs. Krishna Kant Pandey
AI
Salesmen engaged in retail operations can be classified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act if their duties include manual, unskilled, or clerical work, and employers must conduct proper i....
Sales Promotion Employees may qualify as Workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if specified by the Sales Promotion Employees Act; wrongful termination without due process is illegal.
Sales Promotion Employees may qualify as Workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if specified by the Sales Promotion Employees Act; wrongful termination without due process is illegal.
A medical representative engaged primarily in sales promotion does not qualify as a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that medical representatives are considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Serv....
The judgment establishes that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act includes sales promotion employees not engaged in managerial or supervisory roles, but emphasizes the neces....
The unlawful termination of service without complying with statutory procedures mandates reinstatement and full back wages for the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.