[ad_1]
MUMBAI: Almost 16 years after their termination from Bata the well known shoe making company, Bombay high court awarded compensation to seven former salesmen. The amounts range between over Rs 19 lakh to 33 lakh.
They were laid off in 2007 for not following a modified roster that had extended hours seven days a week for operating showrooms
A single Judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne said the termination was sans any enquiry but given the long gap since their removal was reluctant to reinstate them observing that they may not be able to effectively now discharge duties as salesmen in retail outlets .
The compensation computed was of 75 percent of the back wages for last 16 years.
Justice Marne said “Bata India Ltd. a familiar name in Indian households, manufacturing footwear for Indians for the last several decades decided to operate its showrooms in Mumbai, Thane and Pune for 7 days in a week in the year 2007 with extended hours to reduce losses. Bata’s this decision created a rift between the company and some of its salesmen, who were not willing to work as per roster prepared by Bata. Refusal to work as per roster by its salesperson was treated as misconduct by Bata leading to discontinuation of services of some of its salespersons in the year 2007. “
The salesmen approached Labour Court under provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act).
Bata questioned the status of such salesman as ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently as ‘employee’ under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Labour Court has however held those salesmen as workmen under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and ‘employees’ under MRTU & PULP Act and held the complaints to be maintainable.
The shoe makers thus moved the HC on challenging findings on preliminary point of status of salesman as workman.
The HC held, “The services of the employees are terminated without holding any enquiry and without offering any opportunity of defence. Therefore, no fault can be found in the orders passed by the Labour Court setting aside their terminations.”
Bata had alleged misconduct for removal. But HC said, “I do not find any application being filed by Bata seeking liberty to prove misconduct by adducing evidence before Labour Court.”
The Judge added, “ Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that Bata ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence for proof of charge before the Labour Court. The contention is clearly afterthought and merits instant rejection.”
They were laid off in 2007 for not following a modified roster that had extended hours seven days a week for operating showrooms
A single Judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne said the termination was sans any enquiry but given the long gap since their removal was reluctant to reinstate them observing that they may not be able to effectively now discharge duties as salesmen in retail outlets .
The compensation computed was of 75 percent of the back wages for last 16 years.
Justice Marne said “Bata India Ltd. a familiar name in Indian households, manufacturing footwear for Indians for the last several decades decided to operate its showrooms in Mumbai, Thane and Pune for 7 days in a week in the year 2007 with extended hours to reduce losses. Bata’s this decision created a rift between the company and some of its salesmen, who were not willing to work as per roster prepared by Bata. Refusal to work as per roster by its salesperson was treated as misconduct by Bata leading to discontinuation of services of some of its salespersons in the year 2007. “
The salesmen approached Labour Court under provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act).
Bata questioned the status of such salesman as ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently as ‘employee’ under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Labour Court has however held those salesmen as workmen under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and ‘employees’ under MRTU & PULP Act and held the complaints to be maintainable.
The shoe makers thus moved the HC on challenging findings on preliminary point of status of salesman as workman.
The HC held, “The services of the employees are terminated without holding any enquiry and without offering any opportunity of defence. Therefore, no fault can be found in the orders passed by the Labour Court setting aside their terminations.”
Bata had alleged misconduct for removal. But HC said, “I do not find any application being filed by Bata seeking liberty to prove misconduct by adducing evidence before Labour Court.”
The Judge added, “ Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that Bata ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence for proof of charge before the Labour Court. The contention is clearly afterthought and merits instant rejection.”
#Terminated #years #Bata #salespersons #relief #Bombay
