Post on 02-Apr-2018
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
1/8
Presentation On Case Related To
Group- 07
Shambhavi Barthwal- A06
Shweta Chauhan- A13
Nikita Gupta- A15
Rakhi Bhatia- A34
Sneha Singh- A35
Prakash Punj- A39
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
2/8
Introduction
Bata India is the largest retailer and leading
manufacturer of footwear in India and is a part of the
Bata Shoe Organization.
Values: Constant innovation in design and product
development , superior customer service, excellence in
operational and commercial execution, entrepreneurialspirit and passion to win, teamwork in international
environment, trust and respect for our employees, adding
value to the community, delivering on our commitment
to shareholders
BataIndia Today sells over 45 million pairs of footwear every year, serves over 130,000 customers
every day, sells through over 1200 retail stores, operates
5 manufacturing facilities, employs more than 6300
people
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
3/8
Case Facts
Dispute arose on account of varying perceptions of
workmen and the management. The workmen found (a)deduction of wages (b) closure of departments and (c)
outsourcing
On 08.jan.1999, workers gave a notice of strike to the
management
Management said demands are unjustified and allallegations are also untrue and didnt accept their
demands.
On 24.feb.1999 workers went on strike . Management
announced a lockout immediately on 25.feb.1999 which
was next day of strike . A Meeting was held on 21.04.1999 under the aegis of
the Labour Commissioner, Haryana where workers
indicated their willingness to resume work on the
condition that wages should be paid during the period of
lockout. The management found this pre-condition to be
unreasonable.
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
4/8
Contd
Reports were secured from the Labour Commissionerand Government declared the lockout to be illegal but
the management filed a Petition before the Hon'ble
Court challenging the order of government and an
interim stay on lockout was ordered by the Court on
05.aug.1999. On 25.10.1999 a settlement arrived between the workers
and the management when the lockout was lifted and the
workers resumed work and a new memorandum was
entered in to.
Workers claimed wages for the period from 25.feb.1999till 19.oct.1999 when the lockout continued. The issue of
wages for adjudication was taken before the Labour
Court.
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
5/8
Contd
Labour courts findings-
Strike was illegal and unjustified as proceedings were
pending before conciliation officer [according to
Sec.23(a) ofIndustrial Disputes act].
Lockout of the management was legal and justified.
Workers were not entitled to get any wages for day of
strike and for the period of lockout
Contention on behalf of workmen
Workers filed a petetion in high court
There was no conciliation pending before the Board
and therefore, the assumption of the Labour Court was
clearly a serious legal flaw.
The strike was observed after a due notice as required
by law and the lockout was declared the next day of
strike which was on 25.02.1999 was unjustified and
illegal.
Lockout was not only illegal but was unjustified also
because the laborers had volunteered to resume work
but the management prolonged the lockout till
25.oct.1999 for just one day strike.
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
6/8
Contd
In defense learned council on behalf ofmanagement
They pointed out strike is illegal because the three
essential demands on the basis of which the
workmen resorted to strike were all fully covered
under the terms of settlement.[ Section 23(c)]
Workers adopted go slow strategy causing a loss of
over Rs.2 lacs per day to the management.
Using filthy and abusive language for officers and
sabotage of machinery.
Even if the strike was legal and the lockout was
illegal, it was still justified on the above grounds and
the denial of wages as found by the Labour Court
was proper
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
7/8
Contd
Contention on behalf of workmen
Workers were not going on a strike only for matters
which were covered wholly under the agreement .
The illegality of the strike had never been urged at any
point of time on such a basis [sec 23(c)]
No evidence to prove that the loss of rupees 2 lacs to
management was due to the fault of workers.
Even the machinery was destructed on 24.feb.1999 and
its cash bill for machinery destructed was as on
24.feb.2000
7/27/2019 39467499 Bata PPt Final
8/8
Contd
Final Judgment of high court Lockout was neither legal nor justified as the workmen
willing to resume work in April 1999 so the continuation
of lockout till October, 1999 was not justified.
The workmen would be entitled to 50% of the wages for
the entire period. Workmen will get all the benefits and gratuity will also
be calculated treating the period of lockout as being in
lawful service.
The award of the Labour Court is set aside and petition
is allowed to the above extent. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner (workers) before
this Court that the amounts had not been deposited at the
time of preferring the appeal due to wrong advice given
by the counsel.