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.