Delve into the detailed legal analysis and court rulings regarding the ‘go slow’ strategy employed in a workplace dispute. The court’s nuanced examination emphasizes the need for fair opportunity and proper procedures, offering insights into permissible wage deductions and management actions in such scenarios. Stay informed about the complexities of industrial relations and legal implications in handling ‘go slow’ tactics during labor disputes.
Facts
- The High Court partly allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant, acknowledging the ‘go slow’ tactic used by the workmen.
- Management could be justified in reducing or paying pro-rata wages in such a situation.
- Authorities were unable to determine the amounts under Section 33-C(1) of the Act with certainty.
- The appellant was faulted for not adhering to principles of natural justice by not hearing the Union or workmen before deducting wages for ‘go slow’ work.
- Appellant had justified the deduction of wages on a pro-rata basis through notices on the notice board.
- A large number of workmen deliberately did not meet production targets due to ‘go slow’, leading to the decision to pay pro-rata wages only to those meeting targets.
- The norm for calculation of incentive on production was fixed at 12,960 pairs of shoes per week.
- The production was below 50% of the normal production which was set at 21,600 pairs per week.
- Despite repeated requests and warnings, the workmen did not increase production leading to a lockout declared on 08.03.2000.
- The lockout was lifted on 03.07.2000.
- Industrial dispute regarding justification of the lockout, workmen’s strike, and ‘go-slow’ tactics was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in Bangalore.
- Workmen refused payment, leading to a stay-in-strike.
- Workmen post 01.02.2001 deliberately adopted ‘go-slow’ tactics despite settlements agreeing to produce a minimum of 1,200 pairs of shoes per shift.
- Escalation of the dispute resulted in a long strike and a prohibitory order by the Government on 08.02.2001.
- Government used power under Section 10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing workmen to report for duty.
- Workmen resumed work from 12.02.2001.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- Appellant raised grievance about ‘go slow’ strategy affecting work and production.
- Respondent interpreted judgement as a direction to pay full wages.
- Counsel for first respondent disputes this interpretation.
- First respondent accepts findings in judgement that pro rata deduction is permissible for deliberate ‘go slow’ strategy.
- The judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen.
- Prescribes the right procedure to be followed when workmen are present but not working as expected.
- The procedure should be followed in case of disputes.
- The appeal is disposed of without any order as to cost.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The appellant’s contention regarding the ‘go slow’ strategy being considered misconduct in the impugned judgment was rejected by the court.
- The court clarified that no inquiry was required to be conducted by the appellant based on the findings.
- The court noted that the observations on misconduct were made in a different context, comparing the ‘go slow’ work to intentional refusal of work, which was a factual matter beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
- The court emphasized that no factual investigation or formal notice issuance was necessary at this stage, but fair opportunity should be given to the union or workmen in case of disputes on production terms.
- The management was directed to pay the deducted/reduced wages to the employees within a specific timeline, with liberty reserved for the appellant to take appropriate steps on the ‘go slow’ strategy.
- The court found no need to interfere with most findings in the impugned judgment, except emphasizing the need for proper opportunity before making deductions on a pro-rata basis.
- The appellant raised the issue of the Division Bench not considering public notices justifying pro-rata wage reductions, but the court upheld the impugned judgment on this aspect.
- The operation of the impugned order was stayed during the appeal process, and full wages were to be paid to workers as per the court’s decision.
- The court modified the direction in the impugned judgment, allowing the appellant to take further actions on the ‘go slow’ strategy for the relevant period.
Decision
- The stay is vacated
- Appellant must make payment of reduced/deducted wages within one month
Case Title: BATA INDIA LTD. Vs. WORKMEN OF BATA INDIA LTD (2022 INSC 357)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006794-006794 / 2010
