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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more