- This legal case involves a group of seven former salesmen employed by Bata India Ltd, a footwear manufacturing company. In 2007, the company modified its operating hours for showrooms in Mumbai, Thane, and Pune, requiring them to be open seven days a week with extended hours. Some salespersons opposed the altered working hours and lack of a designated weekly holiday, resulting in their termination by Bata.
- The terminated salesmen filed complaints under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the salesmen, considering them ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, and awarded reinstatement with 50 percent back wages. The industrial court upheld this decision.
- Bata challenged the decision, arguing that the salesmen were not workmen and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction over the dispute. The primary contention was that the salesmen were ‘sales promotion employees’ and did not fit the definition of ‘workman’ involving manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, or clerical work.
- The Bombay High Court rejected Bata’s argument, considering the various duties and responsibilities outlined in the standing orders and regulations formulated by Bata. The court concluded that the multifaceted duties, including customer service, cash handling, administrative tasks, and quality control, indicated that the salesmen could be considered ‘workmen’ under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The court found that Bata had terminated the salesmen without conducting any inquiry into the alleged misconduct, deeming the terminations illegal. While the court refused to reinstate the salesmen after 16 years, it awarded compensation ranging from 19.5 lakhs to 33 lakhs to each affected salesman, representing approximately 75 percent of their back wages for the last 16 years.
- In summary, the Bombay High Court upheld the salesmen’s status as workmen, declared their terminations illegal, and ordered Bata to pay compensation to each affected salesman within four months, along with 8 percent per annum interest if not provided within the stipulated period.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Subscribe
Enter your email to get blog in your inbox
Visitors
Powered By WPS Visitor Counter
Search
What you want to search for
Recent Posts
Categories
- Provident Fund – (Notification -Circulars)
- Esic-Circulars
- Minimum Wages-Maharashtra
- Provident Fund Benefits
- Esic Benefits
- Minimum Wages – Gujarat
- Compliance -Calendar
- Income Tax
- ESIC-Hospital
- Profession Tax
- Minimum Wages-Delhi
- Provident fund -News
- Minimum Wages-Karnataka
- Minimum Wages-Uttarpradesh
- Minimum Wages-Haryana
- Minimum Wages-Bihar
- Minimum Wages-WestBengal
- Labour Welfare Fund
- Minimum Wages-Madhya Pradesh
- Minimum Wages- Chhattisgarh
- Minimum Wages-Jharkhand
- Profession Tax- Maharashtra
- Bonus-Act
- Minimum Wages-Orissa
- Minimum Wages-Utrakhand
- Minimum Wages-Tripura
- Minimum Wages-Punjab
- Maternity Benefit Act
- High Court Order on Bonus Act 2015
- Telengana -Shop & Establishment
- Provident Fund -Forms
- Provident Fund -International workers
- Minimum Wages-Central
- High Court Judgements-PF
- POSH-ACT
- Minimum wages-Daman
- Minimum Wages-Goa
- Grautity
- Delhi Shop & Establishment
- Uttar-Pradesh -Govt
- West Bengal -Profession tax
- Karnataka-Shop act
- Haryana-Labour Dept
- Karnataka-Labour Laws Ammedment
- Tamil Nadu Shop
- Gujarat Shop License
- Factory Act
- Rajasthan-Shops-And-Establishment
- Minimum Wages-Chandigarh
- Andhra-Shop & Establishment
- Kerala-Shop & Establishment
- Minimum Wages-Tamilnadu
- Minimum wages-Ammendment
- Income Tax 2016
- High Court Judgements
- Compliance 2021-2022
- Minimum Wages -Assam
- Gujarat-Factory
- Contract Labour Act- Himachal Pradesh
- Contract Labour-Puducherry
- Profession Tax-Gujarat
- Minimum Wages-Andhrapradesh
- Minimum Wages Andaman Nicobar
- Maharashtra-Election
- Maharashtra-Shop& Establishment
- Haryana Shop- Establishment
- Minimum Wages-Kerala
- Central Shop & Establishment
- Minimum Wages-Rajashthan
- ESIC
- Contract Labour act-Gujarat
- Manipur-Shop Act
- Minimum Wage-Himachal Pradesh
- E- Nomination
- Punjab -Shop & Establishment
- Election -Madhyapradesh
- Supreme Court ESIC Judgment
- Karnataka-PT
- karnataka -covid
- Maharashtra Lockown
- Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana
- Social Security Code Rules -Madhya Pradesh
- Code of wages Rukes-Karnataka
- Harayana Local Employment
- Esic-AB PM-JAY
- Telengana -Factory
- Labour Dept Puducherry
- Minimum Wages-Telengana
- Holiday List 2020
- Minimum Wages-Puducherry
- Holiday List 2019
- Holiday List 2018
- Contract Labour Act Haryana -Notification
- Chennai Shop-Establishment
- Contract Labour Act Maharashtra -Notification
- Holiday List 2017
- Other Labour Laws Circular
- Election Circular-2016
- Labour News
- Budget 2016
- Election -Holiday 2016
- General
- Holiday List 2016
- Holiday List 2015
- Budget Speech -2014
- Election Circular-2014
- Holiday List 2014
- Service Tax
- ESIC Forms
- Holiday List 2013
- Payment of Wages Act
- Migrant-Worker
- Migrant Worker-MadhyaPradesh
- Building and Other Construction Workers
- Labour Welfare Fund-Tamilnadu
- Rajasthan
- Odisha
- November-2021
- Election -Chandigarh
- Holiday List 2022
- Minimum Wages- Meghalaya
- Third Wave -Govt Restrictions
- Jharkhand-Labour
- Madhya Pradesh -Shop & Establishment
- CLRA-RAJASTHAN
- Election Gujarat
- Minimum Wages-ladkah
- Holiday List 2023
- Labour Dept Westbengal
- Punjab Factory
- Telengana Election
- Rajashthan-Election
- Delhi BOCW
- Labour Welfare -Harayana
- Election Haryana
- EPS -Pension Judgement
- Employee Compensation
- Public Provident Fund
- Punjab& Haryana High Court
- Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
- Labour Welfare fund -Maharashtra
- ELECTION -Central
.
Leave a Reply