The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked shoe manufacturing company, Bata India Ltd to pay full wages to its workmen within a month.
The top court, however, allowed the company to take appropriate action for the “go slow” strategy adopted by the workmen.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna upheld the Karnataka High Court’s April, 2008 judgment that partly favoured workmen. The court vacated stay order passed on August 24, 2009.
The court had then allowed Bata to pay reduced or deducted wages till the disposal of the case.
“This means that full wages would be paid. We do not feel it will be appropriate to direct factual investigation or resort to the procedure of issue of notice, reply, etc. at this belated stage,” the bench said.
The court also pointed out the workmen union had accepted the HC’s findings that pro-rata deduction/reduction in wages was permissible if there was a deliberate attempt to not produce or do work by resorting to “go slow” strategy.
“We perceive and believe that the High Court judgment protects the interest of the appellant (Bata) and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which 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 on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. This would depend upon the factual matrix and have to be ascertained in case of dispute to render any firm opinion. The procedure prescribed should be followed,” the bench said.
Notably, Bata India and its workmen association had entered into the two settlements in March and December 1998 by which a target production of minimum of 1,200 pairs of shoes per shift was fixed.
The weekly target was determined at 21,600 pairs of shoes in three shifts working per day. The norm for calculation of incentive on production was fixed at 12,960 pairs of shoes per week.
Bata alleged that after February 2001, the workmen had deliberately adopted “go slow” tactics and failed to produce the minimum agreed production, which fell below 50 per cent of the normal production.
Despite repeated requests and warnings, the workmen did not pay any heed and consequently the company paid pro-rata wages to those not meeting the target.
However, the workmen refused payment and resorted to stay-in strike, thus, leading to lockout from March 8 to July 3, 2000. The workmen resumed work on February 12, 2001.