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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...