BATA INDIA LIMITED VS WORKMEN OF BATA INDIA LIMITED

BATA INDIA LIMITED VS WORKMEN OF BATA INDIA LIMITED

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 1 of 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6794 OF 2010

BATA INDIA LIMITED ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

WORKMEN OF BATA INDIA LIMITED AND

ANOTHER ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

It is an admitted position that the appellant - Bata India

Limited and the first respondent - Workmen of Bata India Limited,

an association of the appellant’s employees, had entered into the

settlements dated 11.03.1998 and 14.12.1998. As per the

appellant, by virtue of the settlements, the workmen had agreed to

produce a minimum of 1,200 pairs of shoes per shift. The weekly

target for production was fixed at 21,600 pairs of shoes in three

shifts working per day. The norm for calculation of incentive on

production was fixed at 12,960 pairs of shoes per week.

2. It is a case of the appellant that after 01.02.2001, workmen had

deliberately adopted “go slow” tactics and did not produce the

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 2 of 7

minimum agreed production as per the settlement. The production

was below 50 per cent of the normal production. Despite repeated

requests and warnings, the workmen did not pay any heed to

increase production. Consequently, the appellant decided to pay

pro-rata wages to those not meeting the mutually agreed target.

However, the workmen refused payment and resorted to stay-instrike. Apprehending danger to safety, the management declared

lockout on 08.03.2000, which was lifted on 03.07.2000.

3. The industrial dispute pertaining to justification of the lockout, strike

of the workmen and “go slow” strategy on the part of the workmen

was referred by the Government before the Industrial Tribunal,

Bangalore. Despite referral, the dispute escalated as the strike

continued for a long time resulting in prohibitory order1 by the

Government dated 08.02.2001 over the continuance of the strike.

By another order, the Government invoked power under Section

10-B2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19473 whereby the workmen

were directed to report for duty. Following the order, the workmen

resumed work from 12.02.2001.

1 Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2

“Section 10B. Power to issue order regarding terms and conditions of service pending settlement of

dispute” inserted vide Karnataka Act 5 of 1988, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 07-04-1988).

3 For short, ‘the Act’.

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 3 of 7

4. We need not refer to other details as the issue raised is limited but

observe that the respondent association dispute that the workmen

had never adopted the “go slow” tactic.

5. The impugned judgment by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore dated 11.04.2008 partly allowed the Writ Appeal No.

2256/2006(L) filed by the appellant, inter alia, holding that “go slow”

is nothing but sort of intentional refusal to work. In such a situation,

the management could be justified in reducing or paying pro-rata

wages. The mere presence of the employee at work without the

workmen contributing and doing work would not entitle them to

wages. The judgment observes that the workmen, 40 in number,

had given normal production but significantly large number of

workmen had deliberately not given adequate production in view of

the call to “go slow”. The impugned judgment also records that the

authorities could not decide the issue under Section 33-C(1)4 of the

4 33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.—(1) Where any money is due to a workman from

an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B,

the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of

the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery,

make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if

the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that

amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of

land revenue:

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the

money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of

one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not

making the application within the said period.

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 4 of 7

Act as the amounts could not be determined with certainty.

Nevertheless, the appellant was at fault as it was required to adhere

to the principles of natural justice, especially when the workmen

were disputing the factual position that there was fall in production

by 50 per cent. The appellant should have heard the Union or the

workmen before the management proceeded to deduct the pro-rata

wages for “go slow” work. Having held so, the Division Bench took

notice of the argument of the appellant that they had put notices on

the notice board justifying the deduction of wages on a pro-rata

basis. This, the Division Bench observed, was a matter of fact that

cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction. What was

required and necessary was giving proper opportunity to the

affected person before making any deduction on pro-rata basis.

Having observed so, the management was directed to pay the

deducted/reduced wages to the employees within one month from

the date of receipt of the order passed by the Division Bench.

However, liberty was reserved for the appellant to take appropriate

steps regarding “go slow” strategy adopted by a large section of the

workmen and proceed in accordance with law.

6. We do not think that most of the findings recorded in the impugned

judgment require any interference or even clarification. The

contention of the appellant that the finding in the impugned

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 5 of 7

judgment pertaining to “go slow” strategy nothing sort of misconduct

should be set aside does not impress us. The impugned judgment

does not hold that any inquiry should have been conducted by the

appellant. However, taking holistic and pragmatic view, it is stated

that a fair opportunity shall be granted to the Union or workmen,

especially when there was a dispute whether or not there was

production on the agreed terms. Further the observations as to

misconduct have been made in different context to hold that the “go

slow” work was similar to or like intentional refusal of work.

7. However, what is highlighted by the appellant before us is the

failure of the Division Bench to take notice of the public notices

which were put on the notice board to justify the pro rata reduction

of wages. The notices are in the form of calculation of the wages

actually paid. The workers were not given any opportunity to

respond to these notices. Thus, on this aspect, we do not see any

reason to disagree with the findings in the impugned judgment.

8. While issuing notice vide order dated 24.08.2009 in the present

appeal, the operation of the impugned order had been stayed,

which order is continuing. In view of the aforesaid findings, we

vacate the stay with the direction that the appellant would make

payment of the reduced/deducted wages within one month. This

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 6 of 7

means that full wages would be paid. We do not feel it will be

appropriate to direct factual investigation or resort to the procedure

of issue of notice, reply etc. at this belated stage. Accordingly, we

also modify the direction given in the impugned judgment giving

liberty to the appellant to take appropriate steps/actions regarding

the “go slow” strategy for the period in question.

9. The appellant has raised the grievance that the “go slow” strategy

is still in continuation because of which the work and production are

affected. The respondent herein has interpreted the impugned

judgment as a direction to pay full wages. This is disputed by the

counsel for the first respondent. However, the first respondent does

not dispute and has accepted the findings in the impugned

judgment that pro rata deduction/reduction in wages is permissible

if there is a deliberate attempt to not produce or do work by resorting

to “go slow” strategy. We perceive and believe that the impugned

judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by

prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case

the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on

duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on

the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. This

would depend upon the factual matrix and have to be ascertained

C.A. No. 6794 OF 2010 Page 7 of 7

in case of dispute to render any firm opinion. The procedure

prescribed should be followed.

10. Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of without any

order as to cost.

......................................J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

......................................J.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 29, 2022.