The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bata India Limited vs Workmen of Bata India Limited & Anr. consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the appellant (Bata India Limited) should have given proper opportunity of being heard to the workmen for their “go slow” tactics of working before making any wage deduction on pro-rata basis.
Facts
The appellant and the first respondent (Workmen of Bata India Limited, an association of the appellant’s employees) had entered into the settlements as per which the workmen had agreed to produce a minimum of 1,200 pairs of shoes per shift.
The workmen, after 01.02.2001, deliberately adopted “go slow” tactics and the production were below 50 per cent of the normal production, which did not increase despite repeated requests and warning. The appellant decided to pay pro-rata wages to those not meeting the mutually agreed target. But the workmen refused payment and resorted to stay-in-strike. Apprehending danger to safety, the management declared lockout for about four months.
Procedural History
This industrial dispute was referred by the Government before the Industrial Tribunal. Despite referral, the dispute escalated as the strike continued for a long time resulting in prohibitory order by the Government over the continuance of the strike. By another order, the Government invoked power u/s 10-B2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the workmen were directed to report for duty. Following the order, the workmen resumed work from 12.02.2001. The issue raised is limited, that the workmen had never adopted the “go slow” tactic.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the appellant should have heard the Union/the workmen before the management proceeded to deduct the pro-rata wages for “go slow” work. What was required and necessary was giving proper opportunity to the affected person before making any deduction on pro-rata basis. 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.
It was observed that fair opportunity shall be granted to the Union/workmen, especially when there was a dispute whether there was production on the agreed terms. Further the observations as to misconduct were made in different context to hold that the “go slow” work was similar to intentional refusal of work. 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 as workers were not given any opportunity to respond to the same was highlighted. On this aspect, the Bench did not see any reason to disagree with the findings in the impugned judgment.
Judgment
While issuing notice vide order dated 24.08.2009 in the present appeal, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, which order is continuing. The Bench vacated the stay with the direction that the appellant would make payment of the reduced/deducted wages within one month, i.e., full wages would be paid. The Bench did not deem it appropriate to direct factual investigation and accordingly modified 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.
Believing that the impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen, it was held by the Bench that the procedure prescribed by the impugned judgment 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 based on which wages and incentives have been fixed.
Case Name: Bata India Limited vs Workmen of Bata India Limited & Anr.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6794 OF 2010
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Decided on: 29th March 2022
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
