KIRAN P. PAWAR Vs. BATA INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bata India Ltd. (Bata), 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 by filing complaints under provisions of Sec. 28(1) 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. In two sets of complaints, Bata is before this Court challenging findings on preliminary point of status of salesman as workman. In rest of complaints, the Labour Court, while holding salesman as workman, went into the merits of the termination Orders and has set aside the same directing payment of 50% backwages. Bata has challenged the Labour Court's decision directing reinstatement and 50% backwages whereas the salesmen, on the other hand, are aggrieved by non-grant of 100% backwages and accordingly have filed their own petitions.

(2.) Thus, Writ Petition Nos. 1815 of 2016 and 2606 of 2018 are filed by Bata challenging the Order of Labour Court on preliminary issue holding the complainants as 'workman' under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and as 'employee' under Sec.

(3.) (5) of the MRTU and PULP Act. Bata has unsuccessfully tested the decision of Labour Court before the Industrial Court and its Revision Applications are dismissed. The Orders of Industrial Court dismissing the revision applications are also under challenge in Writ Petition No.1815 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2606 of 2018. 3. In respect of 7 Complainants, whose complaints are allowed by Labour Court by setting aside the Order of termination, Bata has filed Writ Petition Nos. 2606/2018, 1758/2018, 2585/ 2018, 2586/2018, 2589/2018, 87/2018, 2588/2018 and 2590/ 2018. In those petitions, Bata has also challenged Orders of the Industrial Court by which its Revision Applications are rejected upholding the Orders passed by the Labour Court.