US retail behemoth Wal-Mart must pay $172 million (£99m ) to staff who were denied lunch breaks, a court has ruled.

More than 100,000 workers in California sued the company, which owns Britain's Asda supermarkets, claiming that it systematically denied them their right to a 30-minute unpaid break.

"The jury found there was malice, fraud and oppression in denying the lunch breaks," said Chris Lebsock, one of the lawyers representing the staff. "We are very satisfied."

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and largest private employer in the United States, said that it would appeal the verdict.

The company conceded that it had "compliance issues" regarding legally mandated lunch breaks in 2001, when the civil lawsuit was filed, but said that it had since corrected the problem "100 per cent.".

"We appreciate the jury's service, but disagree with its conclusion and will appeal," Wal-Mart said in a statement last night.

The jury ordered it to pay $57 million in compensation and $115 million in punitive damages.

The retailer, which banked $10 billion last year, has come under widespread attack in recent years for paying low wages and blocking the unionisation of its workforce.

There are around 40 employee lawsuits against the company underway but the Californian lunch break case was the first to go to trial. Last year a similar case in Colorado was settled for $50 million.

A pending federal case accuses the company of systematically paying women less than men and denying them promotion. The case was brought by 1.6 million current and former female employees, making it the largest class action lawsuit.

"Our basic theme was that Wal-Mart runs itself on a skeleton crew because it is cheap," Chris Lebsock said."I do believe workers were abused by Wal-Mart, taken advantage of."

The jury's award came just a few weeks after a survey - conducted by a critic of the retailer - found that 56 per cent of American adults agreed with the statement: ""Wal-Mart is bad for America."

In the latest case, some staff reported that there was explicit denial of meal periods, but the majority suffered subtle coercion by managers who pressured workers to forgo meals so that they could serve customers, according to lawyers.

State law called for shift workers to get meal breaks or be compensated with extra pay. They received neither, the lawsuit said.

Wal-Mart said that part of its appeal would be on the grounds that paying workers extra for skipping meal breaks amounted to a penalty fee, and that meant that the company shouldn’t be punished again as part of the jury award.

An unresolved part of the civil suit charging Wal-Mart with refusing to give workers other legally required breaks is still before a judge.

A separate claim against Wal-Mart accused the company of "time shaving" to cut payroll costs. Chris Lebsock, also acting in that case, claimed that Wal-Mart managers refused to log overtime and falsified work records.

Times Recommends

• ‘Lame duck’ fear for FSA as chief quits
• Storm over bailout of EU's most ailing economy
• Northern Rock to drop 100% savings guarantee