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
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, entrepreneurial
spirit 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
• Bata India – 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
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 all
allegations are also untrue and didn’t 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.
Contd…
• Reports were secured from the Labour Commissioner
and 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.1999
till 19.oct.1999 when the lockout continued. The issue
of wages for adjudication was taken before the Labour
Court.
 Labour courts finding’s-

Contd… • Strike was illegal and unjustified as proceedings were

pending before conciliation officer [according to
Sec.23(a) of Industrial 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.
Contd…
In defense learned council on behalf of management
• 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
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
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.