- 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.
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
- Provident Fund Benefits
- Minimum Wages-Maharashtra
- Esic Benefits
- Provident fund -News
- Compliance -Calendar
- Minimum Wages – Gujarat
- ESIC-Hospital
- Income Tax
- Minimum Wages-Delhi
- Profession Tax
- Minimum Wages-Karnataka
- Minimum Wages-Uttarpradesh
- Minimum Wages-Bihar
- Minimum Wages-Haryana
- Minimum Wages-WestBengal
- Minimum Wages-Madhya Pradesh
- Labour Welfare Fund
- Bonus-Act
- Minimum Wages-Jharkhand
- Minimum Wages- Chhattisgarh
- POSH-ACT
- Minimum Wages-Orissa
- Profession Tax- Maharashtra
- Maternity Benefit Act
- Minimum Wages-Tripura
- Minimum Wages-Utrakhand
- ESIC
- High Court Judgements-PF
- Minimum Wages-Central
- High Court Order on Bonus Act 2015
- Minimum Wages-Punjab
- Provident Fund -Forms
- High Court Judgements
- Provident Fund -International workers
- Telengana -Shop & Establishment
- Punjab -Shop & Establishment
- Maharashtra-Shop& Establishment
- Tamil Nadu Shop
- Uttar-Pradesh -Govt
- Factory Act
- Delhi Shop & Establishment
- West Bengal -Profession tax
- Minimum Wages-Tamilnadu
- Karnataka-Shop act
- Karnataka-Labour Laws Ammedment
- Minimum Wages-Goa
- Minimum Wages-Chandigarh
- Grautity
- Minimum wages-Daman
- Odisha
- Minimum Wages -Assam
- Compliance 2021-2022
- Minimum wages-Ammendment
- Supreme Court ESIC Judgment
- Income Tax 2016
- Labour Dept Westbengal
- Haryana Shop- Establishment
- Kerala-Shop & Establishment
- Rajasthan-Shops-And-Establishment
- Minimum Wages Andaman Nicobar
- Gujarat-Factory
- Gujarat Shop License
- Minimum Wages-Puducherry
- Andhra-Shop & Establishment
- Haryana-Labour Dept
- Minimum Wages-Rajashthan
- Contract Labour Act- Himachal Pradesh
- Election -Madhyapradesh
- Sexual Harrasement
- Contract Labour act-Gujarat
- Manipur-Shop Act
- Tripura
- E- Nomination
- Minimum Wage-Himachal Pradesh
- Karnataka-PT
- Punjab Factory
- EPS -Pension Judgement
- Maharashtra-Election
- Minimum Wages-Andhrapradesh
- Minimum Wages-Kerala
- Contract Labour-Puducherry
- Public Provident Fund
- Labour Welfare fund -Maharashtra
- Central Shop & Establishment
- Profession Tax-Gujarat
- Election -Chandigarh
- Telengana Election
- Holiday List 2022
- Tamilnadu ISM
- Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
- Delhi Election
- November-2021
- Bihar-Election
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Employee Compensation
- Rajasthan
- Tripura Shop & Establishment
- Election Haryana
- Gujarat High Court
- Rajashthan-Election
- Delhi BOCW
- Holiday List 2023
- Minimum Wages-ladkah
- Election Gujarat
- CLRA-RAJASTHAN
- Punjab& Haryana High Court
- Madhya Pradesh -Shop & Establishment
- Labour Welfare -Harayana
- Puducherry Government
- ELECTION -Central
- Jharkhand-Labour
- Third Wave -Govt Restrictions
- Minimum Wages- Meghalaya
- karnataka -covid
- 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
- Holiday List 2018
- Holiday List 2019
- Holiday List 2020
- Maharashtra Lockown
- Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana
- Social Security Code Rules -Madhya Pradesh
- Harayana Local Employment
- Esic-AB PM-JAY
- Telengana -Factory
- Labour Dept Puducherry
- Minimum Wages-Telengana
- Election -Holiday 2016
- General
- Labour Welfare Fund-Tamilnadu
- Building and Other Construction Workers
- Code of wages Rukes-Karnataka
- Migrant Worker-MadhyaPradesh
- Migrant-Worker
- Payment of Wages Act
- Election Circular-2014
- Holiday List 2013
- ESIC Forms
- Holiday List 2016
- Service Tax
- Holiday List 2014
- Holiday List 2015
- Budget Speech -2014
.
Leave a Reply