Skip to main content

Are salesmen also workmen as per Industrial Disputes Act 1947?

Cause Title : Kiran P. Pawar vs Bata India Ltd., Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 5862 OF 2018

Date of Judgment/Order : 01 November 2023

Corum : Sandeep V. Marne, J.

Citied: 

  1. H. R. Adyanthaya & Ors. Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 737
  2. Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 42
  3. Pepsico India Holding Private Limited Vs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270
  4. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors, (2013) 10 SCC 324
  5. Bata India Ltd. A Company, Calcutta Versus B. H. Nathani, 1077 (0) AIJ-GJ 223985
  6. May & Baker (India) Ltd. V. Workman, (1961) 2 LLJ 94 : AIR 1967 SC 678
  7. Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 472
  8. T. P. Srivastava Vs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 281
  9. Burmah Shell Case AIR 1971 SC 922 

Background

Bata 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. Some of the salespersons refused which  as misconduct by Bata leading to discontinuation of services of some of its salespersons in the year 2007. The salesmen approached Labour Court under 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 (ID Act) 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. Appeal filed by Bata before the  Industrial Court and its Revision Applications were also  dismissed. Bata filed this appeal against the said orders.

Judgment

The High Court referred to the definition of 'workmen' under the ID Act and observed that as the said act, manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work is treated as a ‘workman’. It is the case of Bata that salesmen employed at its retail outlets did not perform manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational or clerical work. It was Bata's case that the main role of a salesman involves promotion of its business as a salesman essentially canvasses for sale of Bata's products to its customers and also indulges in actual selling of the products in the retail outlets and  responsibilities and therefore a salesman can never be a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Referring to various judgments, the court held that a ‘workman’ was then defined as any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward. Therefore, doing manual or clerical work was necessary before a person could be called a workman. This definition came for consideration before industrial tribunals and it was consistently held that the designation of the employee was not of great moment and what was of importance was the nature of his duties. If the nature of the duties is manual or clerical, then the person must be held to be a workman. On the other hand if manual or clerical work is only a small part of the duties of the person concerned and incidental to his main work which is not manual or clerical, then such a person would not be a workman.

A ‘Sales Promotion Employee’ is defined under Section 2(d) of the SPE Act 1976 as under :-
2. Definitions -
[(d) “sales promotion employee” means any person by whatever name called (including an apprentice) employed or engaged in any establishment for hire or reward to do any work relating to promotion of sale or business, or both, but does not include any such person -
(i) who, being employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding sixteen hundred
rupees per mensem; or
(ii) who is employed or engaged mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.

Disagreeing with the arguments offered by BATA, the court held that duties and responsibilities of a salesman employed in retail outlet cannot be restricted only to sales promotion activities of that outlet. A salesman engaged in a retail outlet of Bata, in addition to performing duties of promoting sales, also performs multifarious functions including actual sale of products. in addition to merely promoting sale of products, they have to perform various other duties such as preparation of cash memo, packing of mercantile, maintenance of stock, marking of prices, reporting shortage of stock, preparation of inventories of stock and furniture, perform administrative work, to help manager in opening and closing of the shop, to fix posters, to help manager in packing and dispatching goods, to receive consignments, to control quality of stock, to set stock on racks, etc. After considering such nature of duties and responsibilities of salesman employed in retail outlets of Bata, it is difficult to hold that they do not perform manual, unskilled, skilled or clerical nature of job or that they are engaged only on the job of promoting sales.


Comments

Most viewed this month

Defamation: A newspaper is in no different position from an individual

In The Publisher and Editor of Divya Himachal and anr. Versus Parkash Chand and ors., the HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that a newspaper is in no different position from an individual and it cannot give currency to a defamatory statement and escape upon the ground itself that, it showed that it did not believe that which it had published. That may have some bearing on the question of damages but not upon the question of liability. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention is in no way less in the case of newspaper publications other than that required from ordinary men. In India, since we have a written constitution, it is recognized that freedom of speech is not an absolute unlimited right. Article 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions on what is guaranteed by article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the mass media must maintain high professional standards and are obliged to verify the correctness of the news disseminated. Publication of false ne

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th October, 2012 that the  law  can  be  summarised  that  in  an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains  merely  a  trustee/bailee