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 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.

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.

Contd

Labour courts findings 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.