Industrial relations play a crucial role in establishing and maintaining industrial democracy. The establishment of good industrial relations depends on the constructive attitude on the part of both the management and the unions (Bhatia, 2002). The maintenance of good human relationships is the main theme of industrial relations, because in its absence the whole edifice of organisational structure may crumble (Mamoria et al, 1995) Industrial relation is an art of living together for the purpose of production, productive efficiency, human well-being and industrial progress. The existence of good human relations, organised labour movement, collective bargaining, fair dealing by management with the workers, joint consultation at all levels, etc. is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of harmonious industrial relations and for building up new attitudes and institutions (Sarma, 1984) Thus, no industry can flourish unless there is industrial peace and co-operation. India was first, second and third among the selected countries in the world in the year 2002 with regard to Man days lost, number of workers involved and number of disputes respectively.
Industrial relations constitute one of the most delicate and complex problems of the modern industrial society. This phenomenon of a new complex industrial set-up is directly attributable to the emergence of ‘Industrial Revolution’. The pre-industrial revolution period was characterized by a simple process of manufacture, small scale investment, local markets and small number of persons employed. All this led to close proximity between the manager and the managed. Due to personal and direct relationship between the employer and the employee it was easier to secure cooperation of the latter. Any grievance or misunderstanding on the part of either party could be promptly removed. Also, there was no interference by the State in the economic activities of the people. Under such a set-up industrial relations were simple, direct and personal. This situation underwent a marked change with the advent of industrial revolution ‘ size of the business increased needing investment of enormous financial and human resources, there emerged a new class of professional managers causing divorce between ownership and management, and relations between the employer and the employer became interchanged and gradually antagonistic. This new set-up rendered the old philosophy of industrial relation irrelevant and gave rise to complex, indirect, and impersonal industrial relations.
Industry today is neither viewed as a venture of employers alone nor profit if considered as its sole objective. It is considered to be a venture based on purposeful cooperation between management and labour in the process of production and maximum social good is regarded as its ultimate end and both management and employees contribute in their own way towards its success. Similarly, labour today is no more an unorganized mass of ignorant works ready to obey without resentment or protest the arbitrary and discretionary dictates of management. The management has to deal with employees today as individuals but also as members of organized social groups who are very much conscious about their rights and have substantial bargaining strength. Hence, the objective of evolving and maintaining sound industrial relations is not only to find our ways and means to solve conflicts to resolve differences but also to secure the cooperation among the employees in the conduct of industry.
But maintaining smooth industrial relation is not an easy task. Almost all the industrialized countries of the world have faced the problem of establishing and maintaining good management worker relationships in their industries. Each country has sought to find our solution, depending upon its economic, social and political environment. However, industrial conflict still arises and therefore establishment and maintenance of satisfactory industrial relations forms an important plank in the personnel policies of modern organization.
2.1 CONCEPT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
The expression “Employment Relations” or” Industrial Relations” is used to express the general web of relationships between employers and employees normally obtained. But it is the narrow aspect of the term. In real sense Employment Relations refers to a dynamic and developing concept which is not limited to the complex of relations between trade unions and management but also refers to all types of relationships between all the parties in an enterprise.
In the narrow sense, it refers to all types of relationships between employer and employees, trade union and management, works and union and between workers and workers. It also includes all sorts of relationships at both formal and informal levels in the organization.
In the broad sense, industrial relations cover all such relationships that a business enterprise maintains with various sections of the society such as workers, state, customers and public who come into its contact.
The subject therefore includes Industrial Relations and joint consultations between employers and work people at their workplace, collective relations between employers and their organizations and trade unions and the part played by the state in regulating these relations. The under- written definition can explain it properly. Therefore, in indusial relations, one seeks to study how people get on together at their work, what difficulties arise between them, how their relations including wages and working conditions etc., are regulated. Industrial relations, thus, include both ‘industrial relations’ and ‘collective relations’ as well as the role of the state in regulating these relations. Such a relationship is therefore complex and multidimensional resting on economic, social, psychological, ethical, occupational, political and legal levels. There are mainly two set of factors that determine the state of industrial relations ‘ whether good or poor in any country. The first set of factors, described as ‘institutional factors’ include type of labour legislation, policy of state relating to labour and industry, extent and stage of development of trade unions and employers’ organizations and the type of social institutions. The other set of factors, described as ‘economic factors’ include the nature of economic organization capitalist, socialist technology, the sources of demand and supply in the labour market, the nature and composition of labour force etc.
The concept of industrial relations has become a part and parcel of management science, since the emergence of the factory system in the early nineteenth century. It also receives widespread attention even in the modem industrial age, as it considers policies and activities for the betterment of personnel in the industry.
The term “industrial relations” refers to industry and relations. “Industry” means “any productive activity in which an individual is engaged” and “relations’ mean “the relations that exist in the industry between the employer and his workers”. The term ‘industrial relations’ is so broad that it is not amenable to a precise definition. But the term is used synonymously with labour relations, employee relations and union-management relations. Even the personnel management is used interchangeably with industrial relations (Scott, 1961). In its strict sense, the term “industrial relations’ means “relationship between management and workmen in a unit or an industry”. In its wider connotation, it means the organisation and practice of multi-pronged relationships between workers and management, unions and workers, and the unions and managements in an industry (Sarma, 1984).
According to the ILO, “Industrial relations deal with either the relationships between the State and employers’ and workers’ organisation or the relation between the occupational organisation themselves”. The ILO uses the expression to denote such matters as “freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise and the right of collective bargaining; collective agreements, conciliation and arbitration; the machinery for co??operation between the authorities and the occupational organisations at various levels of the economy (Kumar, 1961).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines industrial relations as, “The concept of industrial relations has been extended to denote the relations of the State with employers, workers and their organisations. The subject, therefore, includes individual relations and joint consultation between employers and work people at their workplace; collective relations between employers and their organisations and trade unions and the part played by the State in regulating these relations (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961).
The concept of industrial relations is a developing and dynamic concept, and does not limit itself merely to a complex of relations between the union and the management, but also refers to the general web of relationships normally obtaining between employees a web much more complex than simple concept of labour capital conflict (Singh, 1968).
To sum up, industrial relation is the relation in the industry created by the diverse and complex attitudes and approaches of both management and workers or employers and employees in connection with the management of the industry.
Dunlop, J.T. defines industrial relations as ‘the complex interrelations among managers, workers and agencies of the governments’. According to Dale Yoder ‘industrial relations is the process of management dealing with one or more unions with a view to negotiate and subsequently administer collective bargaining agreement or labour contract’.
According to Richard A. Lester, “Employment Relations involve attempts workable solutions between conflicting objectives and values; between incentive and economic security; between discipline and industrial democracy; between authority and freedom; between bargaining grand co-operation”.
Dunlop also defined IR in a simple way. According to him “Employment Relation system should be viewed as a sub-system of the society. “Discussing the structure of an Industrial Relations system, the author observes that IR is an Employment Relations System at any one time in its development is regarded as comprised of certain actors, certain contexts, an ideology which binds the “ERS” together and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the work place and work community.
2.2 EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
The evolution of industry has been quite gradual. There was a time in the history of human civilisation when there used to be no industrial activity. During hunting stage, man lived all by himself. He used to go out for hunting and eat whatever he could find, even flesh, fish, fruits and roots of trees. He used tree bark, leaves and animal skins to cover his body. But he had no fixed residence. After this, man entered into pastoral stage under which he started domesticating animals to have an assured supply of milk, meat and skin. He lived near the banks of lakes and rivers because of the availability of grass and water for the animals. Gradually, man discovered a new use to which land could be put. He entered the agricultural stage. He began cultivating the land to grow food grains. Some people who did not have any work, offered to work in the fields of others. Such workers were paid in kind. The exchange of services for goods made the background for the evolution of industry. The various stages of the evolution of industry can be classified in following Stages:
1. Primitive stage
2. Agrarian economy stage
3. Handicrafts stage.
4. Guild system.
5. Putting out (or Domestic) system.
6. Industrial revolution.
The Machine age started after industrial ‘revolution in England which took place between 1760 A.D. and 1820 A.D. The first three stages represent Pre-machine age. Let us look at these stages briefly:
1 Primitive Stage
The families at this stage were self-sufficient as their needs were limited. Hence, there was no problem of exchange of goods. Division of labour was restricted only to the family level. This was mainly because men devoted their time to activities like hunting, fishing and making of weapons, and women engaged themselves in cooking, bringing up the children, agriculture and domestication of animals and doing other household chores. In short, all the activities of the family were carried on either to produce or to procure products for family consumption. In this manner a family was able to satisfy its needs, and the question of exchange of goods did not arise. In the course of time, some families started keeping the animals rather than killing them. This led to domestication of animals. Animals were treated as a form of wealth, which could be exchanged for other products required by the family. This gave birth to the barter economy. This may be defined as the direct exchange of one commodity for another commodity. ‘The barter economy developed because of the increase in the number of human wants and inability of a family to produce all the things required, by it. The exchange was direct and without the use of any common medium of exchange. Every person used to exchange his surplus goods with the other persons for the goods required. For instance, a farmer, who had plenty of food grains but no cloth exchanged a part of his food grains with the weaver who had surplus cloth and needed food grains. The main difficulty of the barter system was the lack of double coincidence of wants and a common measure of value. Therefore, the exchange was restricted only to the goods in which some families were surplus and other families were deficient.
2 Agrarian Economy Stage
Well by this time things changed a little. Many tribes settled down permanently at some place and began to sow seeds and rear cattle on the land, which they shared in common. Agriculture became the primary source of maintenance during this stage. These tribes were self-sufficient as they produced everything they required. The division of labour confined to the division of work between men and women of the tribe. Eventually with the rise of private ownership of property inland and cattle, the tribe split up into families. Gradually, human wants also became varied. These families were no more self-sufficient. Moreover, some families concentrated on occupations other than agriculture. This led to exchange of goods for goods to satisfy needs of various families and the establishment of village economy. The village became a unit of economic self-sufficiency. Some families also started using hired labour. Later on, traders came into existence that purchased the surplus products of different families and sold them to those requiring these products. The difference in purchase and sale price was their profit. Emergence of traders led to specialisation in different fields by different families. It was no longer necessary to produce everything a family needed for self consumption.
3 Handicrafts Stage
This is stage; artisans living in villages produced the products for the local population and got in exchange various things from customers. There was hardly any machinery. The craftsman used simple hand tools arid manual skills for producing the goods. There was no division of labour at this stage. Thus, the organisation of industry was quite simple. The craftsman was responsible for assembling various raw materials, and selling the goods produced by him.
4 Guild Stage
The ‘guild stage’ is the next stage under this stage two types of guilds were initiated, namely, Merchant Guild, and Craft Guild. A merchant guild was an association of merchants engaged in trade in a particular locality. The purpose of a merchant guild was to enforce equality of opportunity for the members of the guild, to protect their interest, to avoid competition among the members and also to regulate the conduct of its members by prohibiting unfair practices. A craft guild, on the other hand, was an association of the skilled artisans engaged in the same occupation. Thus, there were several guilds in a town. The craft guild regulated entry to the craft, prescribed standards of workmanship and regulated the conduct of the members. The guild system began to decline by the end of 15th century due to the narrow attitude of the guilds and the increasing rivalry among their members.
5. Putting out System.
At this stage, the intermediary between the producers and consumers of goods came to play an important role. The entrepreneur gave outwork to the artisans who worked in their homes. The artisans still owned the means of production. The entrepreneur came at regular intervals, collected the goods and paid for them to the artisans. The artisans faced difficulty when the scale of production increased and there was a need for new tools of production. The entrepreneur started providing raw materials and, tools to the artisans who produced goods and received wages on piece wage basis. That is why; this stage was called the putting out system. During the beginning of 18th century, the entrepreneur followed the practice of employing the artisans and getting work from them at their own premises. The entrepreneur procured raw-materials and equipment, assigned work to the artisans, inspected the quality of products, and found a market for his products. In other words, he was the owner and manager of the production system.
6. Industrial Revolutions
Industrial revolution during the later part of the 18th century and earlier part of the 19th century had a vital influence on the development of industry and commerce. It changed radically the techniques of production and had an important impact on the life of mankind. Industrial revolution was the result of the inventions of many English scientists during 1760 to 1820. The need for inventions arose because of the increase in the demand of products due to widening of markets followed by the geographical discoveries of the late 15th and 16th centuries. It was beyond the capacity of the industry using labour intensive techniques to meet the increasing demand. The inventors in England had set for themselves the task of finding ways and means to remove the hindrances in production faced by the producers and manufacturers. James Hargreaves made ‘spinning genny’ in 1764, and Richard Arkwright introduced ‘water-frame’ in 1779. Thereafter, many mechanical inventions came in quick succession such as ‘mule spinner’ by Crompton, and ‘power-loom’ by Cartwright. The invention of steam engine enabled man to drive the machines by power. The concept Industrial Relations largely emerged during the Industrial Revolution. Some aspects of Industrial Revolution which will help in understanding of the evolution of Industrial Relations it can be summed up as:
1. There were a series of mechanical inventions by the English scientists.
2. Production in factories started with the help of machines run by mechanical power such as steam, oil and electricity: Thus, setting up a factory required huge amount of capital. This gave birth to two classes in industry, namely, capitalist and labour.
3. Introduction of machinery led to mass scale production of standardized goods. .
4. The modern factory system provided both direct and indirect employment to a large number of people. The factories generated direct employment and trading in raw materials and factors products gave indirect employment to traders and mercantile agents.
5. Large scale employment in factories gave birth to labour problems, which necessitated some steps by employers to create good human relations in factories.
2.3 CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
The significant changes brought about by industrial revolution are listed below:
a. Development of engineering. Engineers were required to design machinery for textiles, coal mining, etc. for making and repairing steam engines, and making tools and locomotives.
b. Revolution in iron making. The engineers, who took charge of important task connected with the industrial change, could succeed in their work only if iron was cast in large quantities and was of fairly good quality.
c. Use of power driven machines. Power driven machines were used in industry. It began with cotton spinning and weaving and, later on, spread to wool, silk etc. Rise of chemical industry. The application of power driven machines in textile mills made it necessary to develop bleaching, dyeing, finishing and printing processes to keep pace with the output of textile mills.
e. Development of coal mining. Coal was needed to refine pig iron and cast it into the form in which it was needed by the engineers. It was also needed for generation of steam power.
f. Development of means of transport. For regular supply of raw materials, etc., to industry and for the distribution of goods produced by the factories, effective transport was a must. The development of the means of transport like railways and steamships constitutes the most important impact of the industrial revolution. Above you have seen the changes brought about by the industrial revolution so now going on a little further on the same topic let us discuss the effects industrial revolution had on the economic front.
Economic Effects of Industrial Revolution
Industrial revolution brought about the following economic changes:
i. Large Scale Production. The industrial revolution made mass production of goods possible by the use of power driven machinery in place of hand tools.
ii. Change of form of Ownership. Large-scale production increased the size of industrial enterprises sole proprietorship concerns expanded into partnership firms and further developed into joint-stock companies. The evolution of joint stock companies was an important outcome of the industrial revolution.
iii. Specialization. Industrialization led to a craze for specialization in every field because of development in the means of transport and communication. Different parts of the country (and even different parts of the world) specialized in producing or manufacturing different commodities or parts. Specialization helped in reducing the cost of production.
iv. Rise of Capitalism. Cottage system of production was greatly replaced by the factory system. Under the factory system capital is the crucial factor. Large-scale production further increased the need and significance of capital. This gave birth to capitalistic economy under which there are two classes of people, namely, capitalists and workers. The workers are purely wage earners dependent for their ‘living on the capitalist employers. The capitalist system also increased the importance of money as a medium of exchange, measure of value and store of value.
v. Trade Cycles. Large-scale production accompanied by capitalism gave birth to trade cycles having successive periods of inflation arid depression. During the period of prosperity, there is high level-of employment and sustained rise is prices. But during depression, there is large-scale unemployment decrease in demand and so on. Many weak firms are eliminated during the depression period.
vi. Standard of Living. Industrial revolution had a positive impact on the standard of living of the people. Factories produced goods of better quality and at cheaper rates for the consumption of the people. This improved their standard of living.
Social and Political Effects of Industrial Revolution
Industrial revolution not only affected the economy but also created certain social and political implications, which in turn created the need for organization of workers and later paved the way for trade unionism. Here let us discuss a few social and political effects of industrial revolution:
i. Urbanization. Industrial revolution led to the concentration of population in towns because factories and other establishments were located in the towns. This gave birth to the housing problem. Even now, lakhs of workers continue to live in slum areas in the industrial towns.
ii. Rise of Individualism. People from the villages came to the towns to find employment. Their close ties with the village, land and family were broken. The industrial revolution created conditions under which workers aimed at material progress by working in the factories. This led to the disintegration of joint family life.
iii. Awareness of Rights. The industrial revolution gave birth to two classes, namely capitalists and workers. There was economic inequality between the rich and the poor. Slowly and slowly class-consciousness came in the minds of workers and they organized themselves in the form of unions to fight for their economic, social and political rights.
iv. Poor Working Conditions. The workers were paid lower wages and they had to work under poor working conditions. There was no one to convince the factory owners about the need of good working conditions so long as trade unions did not protest. This was an obstruction in increasing the productivity of the workers.
v. Political Awareness. Industrial revolution increased the incomes and standard of living of the people. The earning people started spending more and more on the education of their children. Press also progressed a lot to air the grievances of the working class. These factors created political consciousness among the people. The workers demanded the right to form unions and to participate in the management of the industrial undertakings.
During the early period of industrialization, workers faced several problems in the factories. They got lower wages and worked under poor working conditions. So they organized themselves into trade unions to secure better wages and better conditions of work. The basic philosophy underlying trade unionism was through strength and collective support, the employers could be forced to listen to the workers and redress their grievances. The weapons used included strikes, slowdowns, walkouts, picketing, boycotts and sabotage. Sometimes, even physical force was used. Trade unionism influenced the personnel management in such fields of activity as the adoption of employee grievance handling systems, the acceptance of arbitration as means of resolving conflict of rights, disciplinary practices, the expansion of employee benefit programmes, the liberalization of holiday and vacation time clear definition of job duties, job rights through seniority and the installation of rational and defensible wage structures. Because of influence of trade unions, several employers in the U.S.A. appointed Welfare Secretaries and also launched schemes for workers’ participation. They adopted paternalistic attitude towards the workers and invested on welfare activities for the betterment of workers. In several companies, personnel departments were set up around 1910 to look after functions like recruitment, training, motion study, record-keeping, welfare, etc.
Trade unionism in India developed quite slowly as compared to the western nations. The main reason for the delayed start of the labour movement is the difference in her economic set up from those of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Though the foreign trading companies helped in the spread of trade and commerce in the country during the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, they were also instrumental in destroying indigenous industries. They were more interested in selling goods obtained from their own country and not in setting up production centres. It was only during the 19th century, and especially during its second half, that a number of factories were set up in Calcutta and Bombay-jute mills in Calcutta and cotton textile mills in Bombay. Industrial capitalism was well established in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, but in India modern types of industries could be set up only during the middle of the 19th century.
Indigo plantations were the first to be started in 1831 followed by a cotton mill in Bombay in 1853, the manufacture of jute in Calcutta in 1855, and the coalfields were connected by rail to the port city of Calcutta. These developments paved the way for development of industries in India.
The first indication of industrial unrest and earliest work stoppage came to the fore in 1877 on the initiative of weavers of Empress Mills, Nagpur. Though no trade union existed, the relations between employers and workers cannot be said to be peaceful. Evidence of short-lived strikes and their frequent occurrence is found at various centres such as Bombay and Surat. ‘They ended in suppression of operatives… power on one side and ignorance and mildness on the other are the basis on which the present relations and the relations are quiet, rest.’ Lock-outs were completely non-existent. This reveals the unequal strength of the bargainers at that time. The powerless workers in mild disputes were intimidated, dismissed and victimized by the employers. In 1895, probably for the first time, the workers struck work at the Budge Jute Mill, as a result of which the mills suffered a loss of Rs. 18,000.
The passing of the Factories Act in 1881 awakened the working class towards a concerted approach. In 1884 about 5,000 workers presented a memorandum to the Bombay Factory Labour Commission under Shri N.M. Lokhande. In 1890, the first labour association, viz., Bombay Millhands’ Association was established. However, till 1895, workers had very little class consciousness and, therefore, they lacked the power of united action. In 189′:’ was formed the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants c: India-consisting of Anglo-Indians and domiciled Europeans employed on railways and acted more as a friendly society than a combination for securing concessions. In 1905, another organization was formed in Calcutta under the name of the Printers’ Union. The Postal Union was formed in Bombay in 1905. These organizations formed on the lines of trade unions and may be considered as the pioneer organized labour associations in India. Thus, it may be noted that there were no strong organizations for concerted action. Whatever trade unions emerged, they were of a purely local character at the level of individual mills. The conditions of labour were severely affected by the World War I and the unions could not do much to improve the lot of workers. – Though quite a number of workers’ organizations did spring up during the early years of the twentieth century, legal recognition to the movement was not forthcoming readily. The first organization-The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in India and Burma-formed in 1897 was registered under the Companies Act. Specific legislation for registration of trade unions was enacted only in 1926. As a matter of fact, the pressure exerted by the trade unions movement in the United Kingdom facilitated this legislation. However, Mr. B.P. Wadia initiated the process through introduction of an element of militancy in the movement in India. The Textile Workers Unions set up by him in Madras in 1918 as an immediate success and through a number of strikes; he was able to get a lot of benefits for the workers. But the employers retaliated by filing a suit for damages against Mr. Wadi, A., and other leaders and obtained court injunction restraining the union leaders from interfering with their business. This led to focusing attention to the need for legislation for protecting trade union activities.
On the other side of the country, a new experiment on the labour front was carried out. A strike was launched by the textile mill workers in Ahmedabad in 1918 whose leadership was taken over by Mahatma Gandhi who turned it into a Satyagrah. From this was born (in 1920) the famous Textile Labour Association of Ahmedabad. Enactment of the Trade Unions Act in 1926 and formation of the International Labour Organisation (I.L.O.) gave a fillip to the trade union movement in India. The immediate result of the formation of International Labour Organization was the birth of the All-India Trade Union Congress in 1920. With the formation of I.L.O., immediate necessity was felt for a forum for election of the workers’ representatives to that organization or, at least, of an agency that could tender suitable advice to Government regarding selection of the workers’ representatives. This necessity led to the formation of the All-India Trade Union Congress. The Trade Unions Act gave legal status to registered trade unions and conferred on them and their members a measure of immunity from civil suits and criminal prosecution. The Act gave legal status to unions and enhanced their position in the minds of employers and the general public. This Act was an important landmark in the history of trade union movement in India. The failure of the Bombay Textile Strike of 1929 and the economic depression of that period brought a lull in trade union activity. But industries faced the problem of effective handling of labour-management relations. The managements declared lock-outs to resist pressure by workers while workers resorted to strikes to pressurize managements for higher wage and better facilities. The Government also intervened in many cases to resolve the disputes between the management and workers. This is how the industrial relations system consisting of three actors, i.e., management, workers and government, evolved.
2.4 EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN INDIA
A study of modern industrial relations in India can be made in three distinct phases. The first phase can be considered to have commenced from about the middle of the nineteenth century and ended by the end of the First World War. The second phase comprises the period thereafter till the attainment of the independence in 1947, and the third phase represents the post-independence era.
First Phase: During the first phase, the British Government in India was largely interested in enforcing penalties for breach of contract and in regulating the conditions of work with a view to minimising the competitive advantages of indigenous employers against the British employers. A series of legislative measures were adopted during the latter half of the nineteenth century, which can be the beginning of industrial relations in India.
The close of the First World War gave a new twist to the labour policy, as it created certain social, economic and political conditions, which raised new hopes among people for a new social order. There was intense labour unrest because workers’ earnings did not keep pace with the rising prices and with their aspirations. The establishment of ILO in 1919 greatly influenced the labour legislation and Industrial relations policy in India. The emergence of trade unions in India, particularly the formation of All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1920 was another significant event in the history of industrial relations in our country.
Second Phase: The Policy after the First World War related to improvement in the working conditions and provision of social security benefits. It was a period of boom for employers. With rising prices, their profits went up enormously. The wages of workers, however did not keep pace with this tendency. Their economic distress brought together and an organised working class movement began in the country resulting strikes or lockouts. During this period, as a result of ILO influence, various laws were enacted i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Act (1923), the Trade Unions Act (1926) and the Trade Disputes Act (1917).
During the Second war, employers made enormous profits. The workers demanded a share in them. Bonus and dearness allowance were granted to them but as money wages did not increase in proportion to the rise in prices. The years immediately following the war were the most disturbed years from the point of view of the pattern of Industrial relations in India. In 1946 the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided for the settlement of disputes.
Third Phase: Immediately after Independence, in the interests of the national economy, it was considered necessary to put a stop to strikes/ lockouts that interrupted production. A tripartite conference was, therefore convened in 1947, at which the industrial Truce Resolution was adopted, giving paramount importance to the maintenance of industrial peace. The Minimum Wages Act, The Factories Act and the Employees State Insurance Act were all enacted in 1948. When India became independent in 1947, industrial scene was subjected to considerable amount of chaos and confusion. Industrial unrest and shattered worker management relations have been prevalent everywhere. Govt. has emerged as an arbitrator between management and workers. It is in this context that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 deserves importance. During the second five year plan period, certain norms, mechanisms and practices were evolved which evolved which formulate the need based minimum wage, wage boards, guidelines on rationalisation, code of discipline, code of conduct, scheme for workers participation in management.
Actors in Industrial Relations
Initially, the management and the unions were considered the two main actors of industrial relations. However, the State’s policy towards labour also began to influence industrial relations, particularly after independence, and, therefore, became the integral force in the industrial relations. It plays a dual role-one as the initiator of policy and the other as employer, or owner, by setting up an extremely large public sector. Again, employees have their organisations. Employers also have their associations. Thus, there are five parties involved in Industrial relations, namely, labourers, trade unions, management, employers’ group and the Government (Singh, 1971). The National Commission on Labour clearly mentioned the role of the actors as “the goal of labour-management relations may be stated as maximum productivity leading to rapid economic development, adequate understanding among employers, workers and Government of each other’s role in industry, commitment to industry and to the individual way of life on the part of labour as well as management, sound unionism, efficient institutionalised mechanism for handling industrial disputes and willingness among parties (Gupta, 2004).
2.5 APPROACHES TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
A large number of systematic attempts have been made by the industrial sociologists and industrial relations theorists to make theoretical perspectives for analysing industrial relations. They develop their own views and ways for explaining the complex phenomenon of industrial relations. The contributions of psychology, sociology, economics, history, political science, anthropology, laws, etc. are of much significance in resolving the problem of industrial relations (Kumar, 2002). Vaidya (1970) observes that “an economist tries to interpret industrial conflict in terms of impersonal market forces and laws of supply and demand. To a politician, industrial conflict is a war of different ideologies-perhaps a class war. To a psychologist, industrial conflict means the conflicting interests, aspirations, goals, motives and perceptions of different groups of individuals operating within and reacting to a given socio??economic and political environment”. Thus, the approaches of workers and the management create a wide gulf between the working class and the employer. A healthy industrial relations scene is possible only by taking suitable approaches to settle the differences between them.
(i) Systems Approach
The systems approach analyses industrial relations systems as a sub system of society’ The core elements of the systems approach comprise actors, certain contexts, an ideology which binds the industrial relations system together and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the workplace. The significant aspects of the environment in which the actors interact are the technology, market constraints and relative distribution of power relations. The actors, in an environment context, establish rules for the workplace and the work community, including those governing the contracts among the actors in an industrial relations system. The network or web of rules consists of procedures for establishing rules, the substantive rules and the procedures for deciding their application to particular situations. The establishment of procedures and rules is the centre of attention in an industrial relations system. The ideas and beliefs held by actors, which help bind or integrate the industrial relations system when consensus is reached. The Dunlop’s system shows a definite preoccupation with rules and rule making and thus shows a concern for order and for containment of conflict.
The systems approach views the industrial relations system as a sub-system of the society or the total social system. The society is seen as providing certain external influences and constraints but not as completely dominating industrial relations. An industrial relations system at any particular time is regarded as comprising of certain actors, certain context and ideology which bind the industrial relations system together through a body of rules created to govern the actors at the place of work and work community. The creation of rules is the central aim of the industrial relations system and
Dunlop isolates three groups of actors-Workers, Management and the Government-who take part in the rule-making process.
Thus, R= f (a,i,b)
Where R = Industrial relations system
a = actors
i = ideology
b = body of rules
Since the problem of industrial relations is multifaceted as shown in the Figure above, the first step will be to diagnose a situation in terms of the prevailing circumstance in the organization and then to adopt a strategy of effecting changes at crucial points. Conflict in industry cannot be completely wiped out, it can only be contained with reasonable limits.
(ii) Classical Approach (Marxist Model)
Karl Marx considered industrial conflict as a part of the broader social conflict between classes and used it to explain the fundamental historical process of change and-development inhuman society. He was concerned with certain macroeconomic processes and deep-rooted inequalities in society as a whole, and not with specific industries or firms. Marx divided the society into two classes: (i) capitalists, who own the means of production, and (ii) proletariat, who own nothing but their own labour power. These classes are antagonistic groups. Antagonism and conflict are of the very essence of Marx’s conception of class. The reasons for this fundamental antagonism lie in the capitalist mode of production.
The main drawback of the capitalist mode of production is the exploitation inherent in the system of wage labour. Wage labour implies that labour is-a commodity which is bought and sold like any other. Labour is bought at the cheapest price possible and put to work on means of production owned by the capitalist. The worker is paid a wage which is barely sufficient for his subsistence. This gap is the surplus value which the capitalist appropriates. This appropriation of the surplus by the capitalist employer is not lessened rather increases, for the actual distribution of additional increments of revenue is determined by the power situation. Workers with no power may get nothing. There is no automatic distribution based on a sense of equity, thus the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist increases. Wage labour is, alienated because of exploitation by the capitalists. Alienation of a worker arises from the fact that he does not own the too1s with which he produces. Whatever is produced from the contribution of his labour is not exclusive creation (because of division of labour), it arises from the appropriation of the surplus; finally, it arises from himself because his labour is no longer a form of self-expression or an end itself, but a mere means to an end-the end being the wage which is necessary in order to survive.
(iii) Pluralist Approach
Job regulation through collective bargaining becomes a preoccupation. The entire thrust of this approach is oriented to the containment of conflict through institutionalisation and regulation of the structure and process of union-management relations. Fox made a distinction between ‘unitary’ and ‘pluralist’ concepts of industrial organisations the former recognising only one source of legitimate authority whereas the latter concept accepts the reality of several interest groups invested with power. Fox recognised the unusual distribution of power within and outside the enterprise because unlike the pluralist, the radical does not see collective organisation of employees into trade unions as resorting a balance of power.
The pluralistic theory is based on the premise that the enterprise contains people with a variety of interests, aims and aspirations; therefore, it is a coalition of different interests. Arthur Ross argued that an organization should view as a ‘plural society containing many related but separate interests and objectives which must be maintained in some kind of equilibrium.’ Given such views, conflict is not abnormal but quite natural. The capitalist is no longer a ruthless exploiter. He is willing to sit down and discuss terms with those who protest. Thus, protest has become institutionalized and has lost its bite. Given the nature and distribution of power in industry and society, both labour and management restrain each other to exercise the exclusives of power. Rather, together they construct and maintain rules and institutions for the regulation of conflict. Conflict cannot be wished away in this system. Arbitration, mediation and adjudication emerge as the major regulators of conflict, and strike becomes a weapon of last resort. Pluralism does not imply the inevitability of compromise and consensus in all situations. Fox argues that the aim of pluralism is to combine social stability with adaptability and freedom-this involves the assumption that on most occasions, conflict will be resolved by collective bargaining-the major institutional apparatus of the pluralist.
(iv) Human Relations Approach/Behavioural Approach
These theories were contributed by behavioural scientists who were concerned with the patterns of human behaviour in work situations. The human relations approach explains the behaviour of individuals and groups at work and helps in modifying or utilising such behaviour towards the achievement of organisational objectives. Their attachment to work and morale can be improved by providing motives of security and participation. The relationship between workers and managers can be improved by providing adequate measures of understanding of personality differences, irrational behaviour arising out of frustration and poor communication. This approach views industrial relations as their origin in the differences in the perceptions of management, unions and workers. These differences arise due to personalities, attitudes; motivation, leadership, group goals vs. individual goals, etc. are responsible for industrial conflicts. Human relation approach incorporates all knowledge drawn from multi-discipline areas like psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and political science. This approach has its origin in the Hawthorne experiments conducted by Elton Mayo, Roethilsberger, Whitehead, Whyte and Homans, etc. According to this theory, conflict is an aberration and not the natural state of human society. This aberration occurs when tendency of the industrial society is to treat worker as an isolated individual, and deprive him of all control over his environment. This loss of mooring and control is a major source of conflict.
The core of human relations theory consists in the importance attributed to the small informal social groups as a source of human satisfaction. This satisfaction results from better human relations through the encouragement in creating informal social groups and better communic’1ition by providing not only downward communication but upward communication also.
The key to sound industrial relations lies in achieving better human relations in the organisation. The major criticism of this theory is that it treats the factory as if it were a self-contained and isolated social system. The sources of conflict lie as much outside the factory as within it and the argument that these entire strains can be handled by the management through better human relations within the factory is not convincing. Neo human religionists like Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor felt that workers look for satisfaction of their needs from their employment. The motivators include both economic and noneconomic rewards like appreciation of performance, knowledge of results, competition, etc.
(v) Social Action Approach
This approach is made to analyse the impact of techno-economic and socio-political changes on various actors and also to analyse the power of various components of the industrial relations environment – Government, employees, trade unions and political parties. The social action model points out the reciprocal nature of the relationship between social structure and behaviour.
The social action model has its origins in Weberian sociology. Under this model, the actors own definitions of the situations in which they are engaged and these are taken as an initial basis for the explanation of their social behaviour and relationships. This model points but the reciprocal nature of the relationship between social structure and behaviour. Social structure limits social action. Thus, a worker’s ability to take strike action or an entrepreneur’s ability to invest may be limited by his personal and by more general economic conditions, and this will help to determine the environment for similar decisions in future. One of the most important features of the social action models is the attitude it adopts towards social theory. The social action approach suggests that general explanations of social action are not possible simply because of the nature of the subject of social sciences-men do not react to the stimuli in the same way as matter in the natural sciences. The social action approach has been contrasted with the systems approach while the systems approach regards behaviour as a reflection of the characteristics of a social system containing a series of impersonal processes which are external to actors and constrain them, the social action approach stresses the way in which man influences the social structure and makes society
(vi) Gandhian Approach
Gandhian approach to industrial relations is based on fundamental principles of trusteeship; there is no scope for conflict of interests between the capital and the labour. Workers can use non cooperation (satyagraha) to have their grievances redressed. Gandhiji accepted the worker’s right to go on strike, but they should exercise this right in a peaceful and non-violent manner. Workers should resort to strike for a just cause and after the employers fail to respond to their moral appeals. Gandhi urged the employer to show more magnanimity and an enlightened attitude towards their employees to ensure cordial employer-employee relations. He stood against exploitation of workmen, he asked workers to earn wage increases through corresponding increase in effort and production. Gandhian concept of industrial relations is much more relevant today than in the past. The earlier it is implemented the better it would be for the cause of industrial harmony and steady industrial growth.
Gandhiji’s views on industrial relations are based on his fundamental principles of truth and non-violence and no possession. Out of these principles evolved the concept of trusteeship on which his philosophy of industrial relations rests. This philosophy presumes the peaceful co-existence of capital and labour, which calls for the resolution of conflict by non-violent, non-co-operation (i.e., Satyagraha), which actually amounts to peaceful strikes in ordinary parlance. Gandhiji accepted the workers’ right to strike, but cautioned that this right is to be exercised in a just cause, and in a peaceful and nonviolent manner; and it should be resorted to only after employers fail to respond to their moral appeals. The principle of trusteeship propagates that the capitalist order can be transformed into an egalitarian one. It does not recognize the right to property except to the extent permitted by society for its own welfare; the individual does not have any right to hold or use wealth in disregard of the interests of society; and the character of production is to be determined by social necessity rather than by personal whims or greed. The apitalist is expected to hold industry in trust for the community; and the workers should be treated as co-trustees with the capitalist employer.
The trusteeship theory implies that there is no room for conflict of interests between the capitalist and the workers. Though wealth legally belongs to its owners, virtually it belongs to the society. If capitalists fail to pay minimum living wages to workers, workers should appeal to their conscience. If this does not work, they should resort to non-violent non-co-operation. As a pre-condition to this, two things are expected from workers: One is an awakening and other is the unity among them. By awakening among workers, Gandhiji meant developing and nurturing faith in their moral strength and their awareness of its existence which means that the workers should realize the fact that without their co-operation, capitalists cannot work and when the workers resort to non-co-operation, their exploitation by capital would stop. For putting the Gandhian concept of trusteeship into practice, the following guidelines should be followed:
a. The workers should seek redressal of reasonable demands only through collective action.
b. The workers should avoid strikes as far as possible in industries of essential services.
c. The strikes should be resorted to only as a last resort after all other legitimate measures have failed.
d. As far as possible, workers should take recourse to voluntary arbitration where efforts at direct settlement have not succeeded.
e. If they have to organize a strike, trade unions should seek authority from workers to do so, remain peaceful and use non violent methods.
(vii) Giri Approach
According to V.V. Giri, the late President of India, collective bargaining and mutual negotiations between management and labour should be used to settle industrial disputes. He suggested that there should be bipartite machinery in every industry and every unit of the industry to settle differences from time to time with active encouragement of the Government. Outside interference should not encroach upon industrial peace. Giri’s stress was on voluntary efforts of the management and the trade unions to wind up their difference, through voluntary arbitration. He was against compulsory adjudication which cuts at the very root of the trade union movement. He advocated collective bargaining for securing industrial peace. The essence of this approach is internal settlement in preference to compulsion from outside and voluntary arbitration and collective bargaining rather than compulsory arbitration.
2.6 ASPECTS OF IR
The following points illustrate the global aspects of IR:
‘ To safeguard the interest of labour and management by securing the highest level of mutual understanding and good-will among all those sections in the industry which participate in the process of production.
‘ To avoid industrial conflict or strife and develop harmonious relations, which are an essential factor in the productivity of workers and the industrial progress of a country.
‘ To raise productivity to a higher level in an era of full employment by lessening the tendency to high turnover and frequency absenteeism.
‘ To establish and promote the growth of an industrial democracy based on labour partnership in the sharing of profits and of managerial decisions, so that ban individuals personality may grow its full stature for the benefit of the industry and of the country as well.
‘ To eliminate or minimize the number of strikes, lockouts by providing reasonable wages, improved living and working conditions, said fringe benefits.
‘ To improve the economic conditions of workers in the existing state of industrial managements and political government.
‘ Socialization of industries by making the state itself a major employer
‘ Vesting of a proprietary interest of the workers in the industries in which they are employed.
IMPORTANCE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Industrial relations play an important role in establishment of industrial peace, industrial discipline and industrial democracy. Good industrial relations, not only maintain a cordial atmosphere in the industry, but also facilitate production and industrial growth (Michaeil, 1979). It also safeguards the rights of the workers and the prestige and interests of the management. Mere technical efficiency, up to date machinery, good plant layout and dynamic organisation, etc. are not enough to make a business profitable; good human relations in industry play almost a decisive role in this respect (Nagaraju, 1981) Economic progress is bound up with industrial peace and industrial relations are not a matter of employees alone, but a vital concern of the community. It aims at creating a sense of belonging in the minds of the workers and a sense of patronising responsibility in the minds of the management. The strategic importance of industrial relations extends beyond the limited frontiers of union-management relationship and overlaps the future prospects of Indian democracy on the one hand, and the basic concepts and assumptions of economic development on the other (Kanaga, 1996). Therefore, it has a vital concern of all the employers, the employees, the Government and the general public as a whole (Singh, 1983).
The development of a nation generally depends upon the overall development of the industry and the overall development of the industry in turn depends upon the cordial and harmonious relations between worker and management. Thus, the goal of an industrial relations system is the maintaining conflict, achieving harmonious relations, resolving conflicts through peaceful means and establishing stable social relationships. Good industrial relations will have a positive effect on industrial production, efficiency, costs, quality, human satisfaction, discipline, technological and economic progress and finally on the welfare of the society.
2.7 HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN INDIA
The origin of the industrial relations can be traced to the origin of the industry itself. Industrial relations in an organised form started emerging in India only by the latter half of the 19th century. The original background of industrial relations in India can be classified under four periods.
(i) Ancient Period (Pre-Medieval Period)
Ancient India had witnessed cordial socio-economic relations. There will be a primitive type of socio-economic relations had existed in the various stages of ancient enterprises like hunting stage, pastoral stage, agricultural and village economy, hire stage, handicraft stage, barter economy, money economy, town economy and putting out system. The relations were not strained. Shudras (workers) placed themselves at the disposal of the superiors. They had implicit obedience to their employers. Slave system emerged in India and the relation between slave and his master was only according to commodity theory. But, the masters were kind hearted to the slaves.
(ii) Medieval Period
Kautilya’s Arthashastra 3rd book provides sufficient evidence for the absence of the organisational existence of industrial relations in the beginning of the medieval period. Various guild systems, viz. artisans guild, merchants’ guild and cooperative guild, caste system and slave system had not provided any scope for organised industrial relations. The relations were not bad during the period, which is evident from the statement of Ghosh & Santhoshnath (1973), “from the 4th Century B.C. till the latter half of the l0th century A.D., in spite of the foreign invasion, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the relations between the employers and the workers were based on justice and equity.” During the Mauryan period, there were evidences of good relations between workers and guild masters and between artisans and workers themselves. Workers were well regarded and the employer-employee relations were cordial. The bright industrial environments had ceased to exist during the Muslim Empire in India. Under the Mughal rule, the industrial environments were directly controlled by the rulers and relations in the industry were based on the whims and fancies of the rulers.
(iii) British Period
There was not much scope for industrial development in India during the early British period. Industries started springing up by the beginning of the latter half of the 19th century. Their relations had been strained, because they had to work in a subservient and deplorable condition, grossly exploited by their contractors. Many disputes had arisen during this period. The Central Government was forced to pass The Industrial Relations Act of 1860. This was the beginning of the State intervention in regulating the industrial relations in the country.
The modem industry in India owes its existence in large measure to the initiatives of Europeans. The workers were not satisfied with the conditions in which they worked and the worker-management relations were not cordial. The workers were working under very deplorable and intolerable working conditions. They formed unions to discuss the conditions under which they were working and the wages they were receiving. This forced the Government to act and The Factories Act was passed by the Government in 1881 which gave an impetus to workers’ seeking after redress. The first labour association, Bombay Mill Hands’ Association, was established in 1890.The First World War further resulted in the deterioration of working and living conditions of workers especially because of the greater development of industrial units. The relations between workers and employers worsened. The industrial peace was violently disturbed because of strikes and lockouts. The increasing class consciousness among the working class, influence of Gandhiji on the political and labour movement and the increasing popularity of Labour Party in England had tremendous impact on the labour movement in India. This led to a greater confident unity among the workers. The International Labour Organisation (ILO), founded in 1919, greatly influenced the labour legislations and industrial policy in India. The industrial unrest had worsened in Bengal, Bombay, and Madras presidencies in the 1920’s. This ultimately resulted in the Government passing a number of legislations for providing social security at the workplaces. The Workmen Compensation Act of 1923, The Trade Union Act of 1926, and the Trade Disputes Act of 1929 are some of the laws which were passed to regulate relations between labour and management (Kumar, 2002). The Trade Dispute Act could not provide the prevention or settlement of disputes. The Royal Commission on Labour in 1931 pointed out the shortcomings of the Act. The Government of India Act 1935, which provided provincial autonomy, generated new hopes and aspirations in the minds of the working class.
The Bombay Industrial Dispute Act was passed in the year 1938. The World War II created more trouble in the industrial field. The Government made use of the Trade Dispute Act and Bombay Industrial Dispute Act to maintain peace in the industrial units. The Government evolved certain measures in the form of Defence of India Rule-8lA and the system of holding tripartite labour conferences comprising workers, employers and Government representative. All these measures failed and the number of strikes increased manifold. Then the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 was passed to regulate the terms and conditions of service. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 was passed for the prevention and settlement of disputes.
(iv) Modern Period (Post-Independence)
Modern industrial relations represent a blending of old systems with innovation introduced, as society has changed through the ages. Some features of early system even now persist, while other features are the result of Industrial Revolution and, therefore, represent sharp breaks with traditionally challenging problems for the management (Mamoria, 1976). When India became independent in 1947, the industrial scene witnessed a considerable amount of chaos and confusion. Government of India has emerged out as an arbitrator between management and workers by the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The Industrial Truce Resolution was shortly adopted, which stressed the need for the maintenance of industrial peace. The Factories Act of 1948 has also been a strong Government step to improve the industrial relations scene. The Minimum Wages Act of 1948 and the Industrial Employee Insurance Act of 1948 were also passed. Still there was not much change in the industrial relations environment in the country. The Government of India have been contemplating effective measures for the maintenance of industrial peace, from the First Five Year Plan onwards.
The code of discipline was introduced in 1958 to restrain parties from taking unilateral action on industrial matters. Many international events impacted the course of industrial relations. The National Commission on Labour (NLC) was appointed in 1966 by the Government to look into the matters and make recommendations and it submitted its report in 1969.Some of the recommendations of the NLC were implemented and some others were never implemented.
The early 1970’s witnessed considerable industrial strife and loss of a large number of Man days .The Indian Labour Conference (ILC), a tripartite body to look into industrial relations problems in India, which was active till 1971, did not meet from 1972 to 1976. In the wake of The National Emergency declared in June 1975, the National Apex Body (NAB) was set up in place of ILC in consonance with the Government’s 20 Point Programme. These bodies were abolished and ILC was revived once again in May 1977. From the late 1970’s to early 1980’s the industrial relations in India were characterised by violence. The Government issued an ordinance to ban strikes on 26th July, 1981 to counter strife in the industrial sector. The Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) empowers the Government to ban strikes, layoffs and lockouts in what it deems to be ‘essential services’.
The Seventh Five Year Plan underscored reducing inter-union rivalry and strengthening industrial relations machinery. It also stressed the need for labour welfare. The Government announced the industrial policy (during the eight plan period) in 1991 and it brought about a drastic change in the organisation and working of industrial system of the country.
2.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Maintenance of harmonious industrials relations is on vital importance for the survival and growth of the industrials enterprise. Good industrial relations result in increased efficiency and hence prosperity, reduced turnover and other tangible benefits to the organization. The significance of industrial relations can be summarized as below:
1. It establishes industrial democracy: Industrial relations means settling employee’s problems through collective bargaining, mutual cooperation and mutual agreement amongst the parties i.e., management and employees’ unions. This helps in establishing industrial democracy in the organization which motivates them to contribute their best to the growth and prosperity of the organization.
2. It contributes to economic growth and development: Good industrial relations lead to increased efficiency and hence higher productivity and income. This will result in economic development of the economy.
3. It improves morale of the work force: Good industrial relations, built-in mutual cooperation and common agreed approach motivate one to contribute one’s best, result in higher productivity and hence income, give more job satisfaction and help improve the morale of the workers.
4. It ensures optimum use of scare resources: Good and harmonious industrial relations create a sense of belongingness and group-cohesiveness among workers, and also a congenial environment resulting in less industrial unrest, grievances and disputes. This will ensure optimum use of resources, both human and materials, eliminating all types of wastage.
5. It discourages unfair practices on the part of both management and unions: Industrial relations involve setting up machinery to solve problems confronted by management and employees through mutual agreement to which both these parties are bound. This results in banning of the unfair practices being used by employers or trade unions.
6. It prompts enactment of sound labour legislation: Industrial relations necessitate passing of certain labour laws to protect and promote the welfare of labour and safeguard interests of all the parties against unfair means or practices.
7. It facilitates change: Good industrial relations help in improvement of cooperation, team work, performance and productivity and hence in taking full advantages of modern inventions, innovations and other scientific and technological advances. It helps the work force to adjust themselves to change easily and quickly
2.9 CAUSES OF POOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Perhaps the main cause or source of poor industrial relations resulting in inefficiency and labour unrest is mental laziness on the part of both management and labour. Management is not sufficiently concerned to ascertain the causes of inefficiency and unrest following the laissez-faire policy, until it is faced with strikes and more serious unrest. Even with regard to methods of work, management does not bother to devise the best method but leaves it mainly to the subordinates to work it out for themselves. Contempt on the part of the employers towards the workers is another major cause. However, the following are briefly the causes of poor industrial relations:
1. Mental inertia on the part of management and labour.
2. An intolerant attitude of contempt of contempt towards the workers on the part of management.
3. Inadequate fixation of wage or wage structure;
4. Unhealthy working conditions;
5. Indiscipline;
6. Lack of human relations skill on the part of supervisors and other managers;
7. Desire on the part of the workers for higher bonus or DA and the corresponding desire of the employers to give as little as possible;
8. Inappropriate introduction of automation without providing the right climate;
9. Unduly heavy workloads;
10. Inadequate welfare facilities;
11. Dispute on sharing the gains of productivity;
12. Unfair labour practices, like victimization and undue dismissal;
13. Retrenchment, dismissals and lock-outs on the part of management and strikes on the part of the workers;
14. Inter-union rivalries; and
15. General economic and political environment, such as rising prices, strikes by others, and general indiscipline having their effect on the employees’ attitudes.
2.10 OBJECTIVES OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
1. To bring better understanding and cooperation between employers and workers.
2. To establish a proper channel of communication between workers and management.
3. To ensure constructive contribution of trade unions.
4. To avoid industrial conflicts and to maintain harmonious relations.
5. To safeguard the interest of workers and the management.
6. To work in the direction of establishing and maintaining industrial democracy.
7. To ensure workers’ participation in decision-making.
8. To increase the morale and discipline of workers.
9. To ensure better working conditions, living conditions and reasonable wages.
10. To develop employees to adapt themselves for technological, social and economic changes.
11. To make positive contributions for the economic development of the country.
2.11 SCOPE OF IR
The scope of industrial relations includes all aspects of relationships such as bringing cordial and healthy labour management relations, creating industrial peace and developing industrial democracy.
The cordial and healthy labour management relations could be brought in-
‘ By safeguarding the interest of the workers;
‘ By fixing reasonable wages;
‘ By providing good working conditions;
‘ By providing other social security measures;
‘ By maintaining healthy trade unions;
‘ By collective bargaining.
The industrial peace could be attained ‘
‘ By setting industrial disputes through mutual understanding and agreement;
‘ By evolving various legal measure and setting up various machineries such as Works Committee, Boards of Conciliation, Labour Courts etc.
The industrial democracy could be achieved ‘
‘ By allowing workers to take part in management; and
‘ By recognition of human rights.
2.12 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES IN INDIA
India adopted the path of mixed economy after independence and began giving emphasis to both public sector (Government controlled and owned enterprises) and private sector (private enterprises) industries according to the Industrial Policy announced in April 1948 (Michael, 1979). The basic motivation of the private sector is profit. It cannot be divested of this motivation without ceasing to be private sector. Public sector on the other hand, has no such essential motivation. It can and should be motivated to fulfil the objectives of State policy, and to act as an agency for the change which the State desires (Chatterjee, 1988).
In India, the public sector came into being with the adoption of the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948, which laid down that industries of basic and strategic importance or in the nature of public utility service should be in the public sector. The public sector was viewed as an instrument for creating resources for the plan finance and development. The Government policy in the public sector is to provide maximum satisfaction to employees by improving their working and living conditions and to ensure that the wage and welfare amenities in the public sector should in no way be inferior to those in the private sector (Sarma, 1984).
Stable industrial relations are the vital prerequisite for industrial progress. Stability of industrial relations occurs when and where the problem of management and work force are discussed in a spirit of mutual trust and confidence without unnecessary delay and friction. Industrial relations in public undertakings will obviously be different from that of private sector enterprises. Profit being a major motive for private enterprise, the management is looked upon as a part and parcel of ownership and traditional labour-management conflict is inevitable because of their divergent interests. But, in the case of the private sector, the objectives of management are more often than not in conflict with the objectives of the workforce. In order to satisfy the social objectives, the public sector enterprise behaviour is to create maximum employment opportunities and also to provide enough welfare for its workforce in the form of schools, hospitals, transport, colleges, etc. Government considers this only as a developmental expenditure.
Most of the private sector enterprises being small in size, communication is much faster and the chief executive carries enough authority to take independent decisions. The public sector enterprises, on the other hand, are generally large in size, and due to a larger workforce, the problems of industrial relations will be more complex and the machinery to resolve them should also be more sophisticated. In India, there were 187.73 lakh employees (158.86 lakh male and 28.87 lakh female) in the public sector and 84.32 lakh employees (63.83 male and 20.49 female employees) in the private sector as on 31.3.2002(Ministry of Labour (DGE&T), Economic Survey, 2002).
2.13 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN INDIA
Industrial disputes are used as an index variable for measuring the industrial relations situation in the country. An analysis of the number of industrial disputes in the public and private sector during the last decade (from 1996 to 2005 ) reveals that on an average 801 disputes took place in India every year, which consist of 181 disputes (23 per cent) in the public sector and 620 disputes(77 per cent) in the private sector. The number of disputes in the public sector ranges from a low of 49 disputes (minimum percentage, 2004) to a high of 448 disputes (maximum percentage, 1997). It shows a decline during the years from 1997 to 2004. Similar to the public sector, the number of disputes in the private sector also shows a declining trend from the year 1997 to 2005. The disputes in the private sector range from a low of 358 disputes (2005) to a high of 857 disputes (1997). The total number of disputes also shows a decreasing trend from 1997 to 2005.
Table 2.1
Number of Industrial Disputes in the Public and Private Sector in India
No. of disputes
Year
Public sector
Private sector
Total
1996 381 (33) 785 (67) 1166
1997 448 (34) 857 (66) 1305
1998 283 (26) 814 (74) 1097
1999 165 (18) 762 (82) 927
2000 125 (16) 646 (84) 771
2001 139 (21) 535 (79) 674
2002 63 (11) 516 (89) 579
2003 59 (11) 493 (89) 552
2004 49 (10) 428 (90) 477
2005 100 (22) 358 (78) 458
Period average 181 (23) 620 (77) 801
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.
Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
WORKERS INVOLVED IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN INDIA
Table 2.2 highlights the workers involved in disputes in the public and private enterprises in India. The average number of workers involved in industrial disputes in India during the period 1996 – 2005 was 13.89 lakhs. Of these, the number of workers involved in the public sector comes to 8.97 lakhs (65 per cent) and that of private sector, comes to 4.92 lakhs (35 per cent). The workers involved in the public sector range from a low of 3.47 lakhs (2002) to a high of 16.85 lakh (2005).Meanwhile, in the private sector, it ranges from a low of 2.60 lakh (2001) to a high of 7.58 lakh (1999).
Tablel.2.2
Number of Workers Involved in Industrial Disputes in India
(in 000’s)
Workers involved
Year
Public sector
Private sector
Total
1996 607 (65) 333 (35) 940
1997 618 (63) 363 (37) 981
1998 901 (70) 388 (30) 1289
1999 553 (42) 758 (58) 1311
2000 1147(81) 271 (19) 1418
2001 428 (62) 260 (38) 688
2002 347 (32) 733 (68) 1080
2003 1099 (61) 717 (39) 1816
2004 1590 (77) 482(23) 2072
2005 1685(73) 610 (27) 2295
Period average 897(65) 492 (35) 1389
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla. Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
Number of Man days Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in India
Table 2.3 shows the man days lost due to industrial disputes in the public and private sector in India from 1996 to 2005. The average number of man days lost in the public sector was 38.12 lakh (16 per cent), whereas in the private sector, it was 204.49 lakh (84 per cent). The lowest number of man days lost (8.04 lakh man days, i.e., three per cent) in the public sector was in the year 2002 and heavy loss occurred during the year 2000 (106.81 lakh i.e. 37 per cent). Meanwhile, the number of man days lost in the private sector ranges from a low of 144.86 lakh (66 per cent) to a high of 257.82 lakh (97 per cent) during the period 1996-2005.
Table 2.3
Number of Man days Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in India
(in 000’s)
Man days lost
Year
Public sector
Private sector
Total
1996 3151(16) 17134 (84) 20285
1997 2181 (13) 14791 (87) 16972
1998 7576 (34) 14486 (66) 22062
1999 1176 (4) 25611 (96) 26787
2000 10681(37) 18082 (63) 28763
2001 2024 (9) 21743 (91) 23767
2002 804 (3) 25752 (97) 26586
2003 6856 (23) 23400 (77) 30256
2004 1806 (8) 22061 (92) 23867
2005 1867 (8) 21398 (92) 23265
Period average 3812 (16) 20449 (84) 24261
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.
Notes: Figures in brackets show percentage.
Industrial Disputes by causes in India
Industrial disputes are the result of clashes in the goals and aspirations of the workers and the employers, variation in the causes of industrial disputes will indicate the changes in the pattern of workers’ goals and aspirations (Sinha et al., 1977) Table 2.4 and 2.5 highlights the important causes of disputes in the public and private enterprises in India from 1996 to 2005.
In the public sector, wages and allowances (28.8 per cent), personnel and retrenchment (18.2 per cent) and indiscipline and violence were the three important causes of disputes. Safety measures and charter of demands also affect the industrial dispute situation in the public sector (Table 1.4).Meanwhile, in the private sector, indiscipline and violence (27.8 per cent), wages and allowances (20.7 per cent) and personnel and retrenchment were the major
CAUSES OF DISPUTES
Charter of demands and bonus also influence the industrial dispute position in the private sector. Table 2.4 shows the causes of industrial disputes.
Table 2.4
Industrial Disputes by Causes (Public Sector) in India
Causes of
disputes 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average
Wages
and allowances
30.7
24.6
23.7
29.7
24.8
32.4
11.1
37.3
44.9
N.A.
28.8
Personnel &
retrenchment
19.4
20.1
19.8
17.0
14.4
10.1
35.(
13.6
14.3
N.A.
18.2
Indiscipline &
violence
15.2
18.7
20.4
16.4
12.8
15.8
4.~
11.9
12.3
N.A.
14.3
Leave and hours
of work
1.3
4.2
3.2
1.2
0.8
0
0
0
2.0
N.A.
1.4
Bonus 2.4 1.6 4.6 1.2 1.6 2.2 6.2 8.4 0 N.A. 3.1
Non
implementation
of Agreements
& awards
1.8
0.7
1.1
1.8
0.8
7.2
6.2
0
0
N.A.
2.2
Charter of
demands
1.6
2.9
4.2
3.6
12.0
5.0
6.2
8.4
10.2
N.A.
6.0
Betterment of
amenities
3.9
7.1
3.2
3.6
4.8
2.8
3.5
1.7
0
N.A.
3.4
Safety measures 8.7 7.6 3.5 12.7 8.8 3.6 7.[ 6.8 12.3 N.A. 8.0
Others 14.7 12.5 15.6 11.0 8.8 8.7 14.2 10.2 2.0 N.A. 10.9
Not known 0.3 0 0.7 1.8 10.4 12.2 4.~ 1.7 2.0 N.A. 3.7
Total 00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N.A. 100
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla. Note: Figures in percentage.
Table 2.5
Industrial Disputes by Causes (Private Sector) in India
Causes of
disputes 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average
Wages and allowances 21.3 22.8 20.4 20.2 19.7 22.6 21.5 16.6 21.5 N.A. 20.7
Personnel &
retrenchment
19.0
20.8
15.6
13.9
12.1
12.9
13.5
12.4
12.6
N.A.
14.7
Indiscipline &
violence
19.6
20.4
21.4
23.1
28.0
25.1
32.5
37.4
42.3
N.A.
27.8
Leave and hours
of work
2.0
1.4
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.??
1.0
0.2
N.A.
0.9
Bonus 11.1 12.3 13.5 10.7 9.9 7.7 6.4 5.9 3.7 N.A. 9.1
Non
implementation
of agreements
and awards
5.4
4.7
3.6
4.3
3.4
2.8
2.5
1.2
1.2
N.A.
3.2
Charter of
demands
8.3
6.4
10.4
13.4
13.0
11.4
10.5
8.1
4.9
N.A.
9.6
Betterment of
amenities
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
0
0
0.2
N.A.
0.4
Safety measures 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 1.2 N.A. 0.4
Others 6.6 6.7 7.9 6.4 7.7 9.0 6.5 8.9 6.8 N.A. 7.3
Not known 5.9 4.3 5.8 6.3 4.0 7.5 5.0 8.3 5.4 N.A. 5.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N.A. 100
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla. Note: Figures in percentage.
2.14 PLANNING FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
In future organization systems, employees would consider themselves to be partners in management and expect their talents to be utilized to the fullest. With increased self-esteem and self-image, young graduates will resist authority and would challenge prevailing management prerogatives. Tomorrow’s management control centers, advanced OR models will aid future managers in the use of resources, they would need to balance humanistic values with the flow of advancing science and technology. According to Victor Fuchs, ‘In future, the large corporation is likely to be over-shadowed by the hospital, university, research institutes, government offices and professional organizations that are the hallmarks of a service economy’. Following the concept of ‘corporate citizenship’, the ‘responsible corporation’ has to develop as a social institution, where people share success and failure, create ideas, interact and work for development and realization of the individual’s potential as human being.
Since Industrial Relations is a function of three variables ‘ management, trade unions and workers, a workable approach towards planning for healthy labour-management relations can be developed by:
‘ Defining the acceptable boundaries of employer/ employee action;
‘ Granting the freedom to act within these boundaries; and
‘ Monitoring the resulting developments.
For achieving the objectives of improved management ‘ trade union the following line for action is suggested:
‘ A realistic attitude of managers towards employees and vice versa for humanizing industrial relations.
‘ Proper organization climate and extension of area of Industrial Relations,
‘ Institutionalism of industrial relations and effective forums for interaction between management and trade unions at plant, industry and national levels.
‘ A comprehensive system of rules and discipline,
‘ The maintenance of an efficient system of communication,
‘ An objective follow-up pattern for industrial relations system.
‘ Respect for public opinion and democratic values
‘ An integrated industrial relations policy incorporating rational wage policy; trade union and democratic rights, sanctity of ballot, collective bargaining and tripartite negotiations.
Whatever, labour laws may lay down, it is the approach of the management and union which matters and unless both are enlightened, industrial harmony is not possible. In fact both managements and workers need a change in their philosophy and attitudes towards each other. In all fairness, both management and workers should not look upon themselves as two separate and distinct segments of an organization, but on the contrary, realize that both are partners in an enterprise working for the success of the organization for their mutual benefit and interest. It is becoming increasingly obvious that industrial peace amongst all participants in the industrial relations systems requires truth as foundation, justice as its rule, love as its driving force, and liberty as its atmosphere.
2.15 TRADE UNIONISM
Trade unionism is a worldwide movement and the highly strategic position occupied by trade unions in modern industrial society has been widely recognized. In most cases, employees’ associations or trade unions seem to have emerged as ‘protest movements’ reaching against the working relationships and condition created by industrialization. When industrialization begins, organization members have to be generally recruited from the ranks of former agricultural labour and artisans who have to adapt themselves to the changed conditions of industrial employment. They have to be provided with new types of economic security ‘ wages / salaries, benefits and services etc. Often they may have to learn to live together in newly developing industrial townships and cities and also to adopt themselves to new working conditions and new pattern of work-rules imposing discipline and setting pace of work to which they are unfamiliar. Their old habits and traditions do not suffice to guide them in their daily work-behaviour and in consequence they may be disorganized and frustrated. Thus the growth of modern industrial organizations involving the employment of a large number of workers / employees in new type of working conditions and environment makes them helpless in bargaining individually for their terms of employment. As observed by Frank Tannenbaum, ‘The emergence of trade unionism lies in the Industrial Revolution which disrupted the older way of life and created a new society forged by the shop, the factory, the mine and the industry.
Meaning Of Trade Union, Organized Labour And Labour Movement
The term ‘Trade Union’ has been defined in various ways because of wide differences in the use of this term in different countries. Of all the definitions of a trade union, the classic definition of the Webbs has been most popular. According to them a trade union is ‘a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the condition of their working lives’. Since this definition does not cover all the extensions of trade union activities in modern times, a trade union with some modification may be redefined as ‘a continuous association of wage-earners or salaried employees for maintaining the conditions of their working lives and ensuring them a better and healthier status in industry as well as in the society’.
The term ‘Organized Labour’ is used to distinguish workers/ employees who are members of trade unions or employee association from those who are unorganized, i.e. who are not members of any union.
The term ‘Labour Movement’ is generally applied to all the various types of long-term association of workers / employees that the formed in industrialized or industrializing economies. According to Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, labour movement is conceived as ‘all of the organized activity of wage-earners to better their own condition s either immediately or in the more or less distant future’. According to G.D.H. code, ‘Labour movement implies, in some degree, a community of outlook. Thus the labour movement in a country emerges from a common need to serve a common interest. It seeks to develop amongst employees a spirit of combination, class-consciousness and solidarity of interest and generates a consciousness for self-respect and creates organizations for their self protection, safeguarding of their common interest and betterment of their economic and social conditions. A trade union is thus an essential basis of labour movement. The labour movement without trade unions cannot exist. Trade unions are the principal institutions in which the employees learn the lesson of self-reliance and solidarity.
Difference between Labour Movement And Trade Union Movement
There is lot of confusion on the use of the terms ‘labour movement’ and ‘trade union movement’. Often the two are used interchangeably. However, there is a slight distinction between the two. The ‘labour movement’ is ‘for the worker’; whereas the ‘trade union movement’ is ‘by the workers’. This distinction needs to be noticed all the more because till the workers organized themselves into trade unions, efforts were made mainly by the social reformers to improve the working and living conditions of labour. These efforts should be taken as forming a part of the labour movement and not that of the trade union movement. The labour movement thus conveys a higher degree of consciousness amongst workers than conveyed by mere trade union movement.
2.16 THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT IN INDIA
The trade union movement’s origin in a sense can be traced back to very early date to the time when villages had panchayats and guilds for settling disputes between the masters and their members. The panchayats prescribed the code of conduct which was rigidly observed by its members. Its non-observance resulted in expulsion from the community. Trade unions, as understood today, however originated in the first quarter of the present century, although the groundwork was laid during the last quarter of the 19th century. In Mumbai, as early as in 1975, a movement was started by reformers under the leadership of Sorabji Shapurju. They protested against the appealing conditions of the factory workers and appealed for introduction of adequate legislation to prevent them. The credit of laying the foundation of the organized labour movement in India is at time accorded to Mr. N.M. Lokhande, a factory worker himself. An agitation was organized by him a 1984 in Mumbai. This resulted in certain amenities being extended to the mill workers which led to the organization of the Mumbai Milhands Association.
Actually a real organized labour movement in India started at eh end of the First World War. Rising prices, without a corresponding increase in wages, despite the employers making huge profits, led to a new awakening. Many trade unions were formed throughout India. There were a number of strikes during 1919 to 1922. To this was added the influence of the Russian Revolution, the establishment of the ILO (International Labour Organisation) and the All-India Trade Union Congress. Thie4 speeded up the pace of the trade union movement. Following the Second World War, there was a spiraling of prices. The workers once again became restive. This further indirectly strengthened the movement in India.
The labour world in India is dominated mainly by four central organization of labour. These unions are, in fact, federations of affiliated union ‘ units which function on regional, local and craft bases. These are:
1. All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC): An important event in the history of trade union movement in India was the organization of the All-India Trade Union Congress in 1920. Mr. Nehru took a prominent part in the organization of this Congress. It followed the pattern of the trade union s in the United Kingdom. The effort toward unified action in the matter of labour was, however, short-lived and soon it came under the domination of the Communists and Radicals. This lienated any prominent people who did not subscribe to the views and ideology of the communists. At present, it is the second largest union of workers and is still controlled by Communists and fellow-travellers.
2. Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC): In May, the Indian National Trade Union Congress was organized by the Congress party on its labour front. This was formed with the help of the Hindustan Mazdoor Sewak Sangh which consisted of those who believed in Gandhian methods and had left the AITUC in 1937 under of leadership of Mr. M.N. Roy. The INTUC received the blessings of the top congress leaders at the Centre like Mr. Nehru and Sardar Patel. The prominent leaders of ATLA and HMSS were elected office-bearers of INTUC. One of the important points of the constitution of Indian National Trade Union Congress is that every affiliated union has to agree to submit to arbitration every individual dispute in which settlement is not reached thorough negotiations. There must be no strikes till other means of settlement are exhausted. In 1948, the Government of India declared that INTUC, and not AITUC, was the most representative organization of labour in the country entitled to represent Indian labour in I.L.O.
3. Hind Mazdoor Sangha (HMS) : The socialists in the Congress disapproved not only the Communist run AITUC but also the Congress-sponsored INTUC, particularly because it advocated compulsory arbitration as a method of resolving industrial disputes. For some time the activities of socialist leaders were coordinated by the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat. Subsequently when they left the Congress, they met in Kolkatta in December, 1948 and a new federation by the Hind Mazdoor domination by employers, Government and political parties.
4. United Trade Union Congress (UTUC): The dissidents from the Socialist Leaders’ Congerence held at Kolkatta in December, 1948 proceeded to establish yet another federation of trade unions in April-May 1949 under the name of United Trade Union Congress. The UTUS is more radical than HMS but less revolutionary in its objectives and policies than AITUC.
2.17 NEED FOR TRADE UNION
‘ One of the main reasons of workers joining a trade union been their belief to get wages increased and maintained at a reasonable standard through collective action and their realization that individual bargaining was utterly useless for this purpose.
‘ Since the employee, as an individual, feels specially weak, he prefers to join an organization that my afford him an opportunity to join others for the achievement of those objectives that he considers as socially desirable.
‘ The employees may join the unions to ensure a just and fair dealing by management.
‘ Through collective strength, they restrain the management from taking any such action which may be irrational, illogical, discriminatory or contrary to their general interests.
‘ Another reason of employees joining some union may be the broader realization on their part that unions fulfill the important need for adequate machinery for proper maintenance of labour-management relations.
‘ Employees may join the unions because of their belief that it is an effective way to secure adequate protection from various types of hazards and income insecurity such as accident injury, illness, unemployment etc.
‘ The employees may join the unions because of their feeling that this would enable them to communicate their views, ideas, feelings and frustrations to the management effectively.
‘ Individuals may join the unions in the hope of finding a job through their influence in the company management.
FUNCTIONS OF TRADE UNIONS
‘ Functions relating to members
‘ Functions relating to organization
‘ Functions relating to the union; and
‘ Functions relating to the society.
FUNCTIONS RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERS
1. To safeguard workers against all sorts of exploitation by the employers, by union leaders and by political parties.
2. To protect workers from the atrocities and unfair practices of the management.
3. To ensure healthy, safe and conducive working conditions, and adequate conditions of work.
4. To exert pressure for enhancement of rewards associated with the work only after making a realistic assessment of its practical implications.
5. To ensure a desirable standard to living by providing various types of social service ‘ health, housing, educational, recreational, cooperative, etc. and by widening and consolidating the social security measures.
6. To guarantee a fair and square deal and social security measures.
7. To remove the dissatisfaction and redress the grievances and complaints of workers.
8. To encourage worker’s participation in the management of industrial organization and trade union, and to foster labour-management cooperation.
9. To make the workers conscious of their rights and duties.
10. To impress upon works the need to exercise restraint in the use of rights and to enforce them after realistically ascertaining their practical implications.
11. To stress the significance of settling disputes through negotiation, joint consultation and voluntary arbitration.
12. The raise the status of trade union members in the industrial organization and in the society at large.
Functions relating to industrial organization
1. To highlight industrial organization as a joint enterprise between workers and management and to promote identity of interests.
2. To increase production quantitatively and qualitatively, by laying down the norms or production and ensuring their adequate observance.
3. To help in the maintenance of discipline.
4. To create opportunities for worker’s participation in management and to strengthen labour-management cooperation.
5. To help in the removal of dissatisfaction and redressal of grievances and complaints.
6. To promote cordial and amicable relations between the workers and management by settling disputes through negotiation, joint consultation and voluntary arbitration, and by avoiding litigation.
7. To create favourable opinion of the management towards trade unions and improve their status in industrial organization.
8. To exert pressure on the employer to enforce legislative provision beneficial to the workers, to share the profits equitably, and to keep away from various types of unfair labour practices.
9. To facilitate communication with the management.
10. To impress upon the management the need to adopt reformative and not punitive, approach towards workers’ faults.
FUNCTIONS RELATING TO TRADE UNIONS ORGANIZATION
1. To formulate policies and plans consistent with those of the industrial organization and society at large.
2. To improve financial position by fixing higher subscription, by realizing the union dues and by organizing special fund-raising campaigns.
3. To preserve and strengthen trade union democracy.
4. To train members to assume leadership position.
5. To improve the network of communication between trade union and its members.
6. To curb inter-union rivalry and thereby help in the creating of unified trade union movement.
7. To resolve the problem of factionalism and promote unity and solidarity within the union.
8. To eradicate casteism, regionalism and linguism within the trade union movement.
9. To keep away from unfair labour practices.
10. To save the union organization from the exploitation by vested interests ‘personal and political.
11. To continuously review the relevance of union objectives in the context of social change, and to change them accordingly.
12. To prepare and maintain the necessary records.
13. To manage the trade union organization on scientific lines.
14. To publicize the trade union objectives and functions, to know people’s reaction towards them, and to make necessary modifications.
FUNCTIONS RELATING TO SOCIETY
1. To render all sorts of constructive cooperation in the formulation and implementation of plans and policies relating to national development.
2. To actively participate in the development of programmes of national development, e.g., family planning, afforestation, national integration, etc.
3. To launch special campaigns against the social evils of corporation, nepotism, communalism, casteism, regionalism, linguism, price rise, hoarding, black marketing, smuggling, sex, inequality, dowry, untouchability, illiteracy, dirt and disease.
4. To create public opinion favourable to government’s policies and plans, and to mobilize people’s participation for their effective implementation.
5. To create public opinion favourable to trade unions and thereby to raise their status.
6. To exert pressure, after realistically ascertaining its practical implications, on the government to enact legislation conducive to the development of trade unions and their members.
PROBLEMS OF TRADE UNION
The following are some of the most important problems of the trade unions in India:
1. Multiplicity of Trade Unions and Inter-union Rivalry
2. Small Size of Unions
3. Financial Weakness
4. Leadership Issues
5. Politicalisation of the Unions
6. Problems of Recognition of Trade Unions
MULTIPLICITY OF TRADE UNIONS
Multiple rival unionisms is one of the great weaknesses of the Indian trade union movement. ‘Multiple unions are mainly the result of political outsiders wanting to establish unions of their own, with a view to increasing their political influence’. The existence of different conflicting or rival organisations, with divergent political views, is greatly responsible for inadequate and unhealthy growth of the movement. Within a single organisation one comes across a number of groups comprising or ‘insiders and outsiders’, ‘new-comers’, and ‘old-timers’, moderates’ and radicals’, and ‘high’ and low caste’ people. This develops small unions. Inter-union and intra-union rivalry undermines the strength and solidarity of the workers in many ways.
Multiplicity of unions lead to inter-union rivalries, which ultimately cuts at the very root of unionism, weakens the power of collective bargaining, and reduces the effectiveness of workers in securing their legitimate rights. Therefore, there should be ‘One union in one Industry’.
Inter-union rivalry
Another vexing problem is that of intra-union rivalry. Trade rivalry is acute and pervades the entire industrial scene in India. Practically every important industry, there exists parallel and competing unions, e.g. on the Indian Railways, there are two parallel Federations ‘ the Indian Railway Men’s Federation and Indian National Federation of Railway-men.
Small Size of unions
The small size of unions is due to various factors, namely:
‘ The fact that by seven workers may form a union under the Trade Union Act of 1926, and get it registered and a large number of small unions have grown.
‘ The structure of the trade union organization in the country ‘ which is in most cases the factory or the unit of employment; so whenever employees in a particular factory or mine are organized, a new union is formed.
‘ Unionism in India started with the big employers and gradually spread to smaller employers. This process is still continuing and has pulled down the average membership. Though the number of unions and union membership are increasing average membership is declining.
‘ Rivalry among the leaders and the Central Organisation has resulted in multiplicity of unions.
The small size of unions create problems such as:
‘ Lack of funds to help its members.
‘ Lack of ability among the leaders and members.
‘ Low bargaining power.
‘ Rivalry between the unions
‘ Lack of unity among workers.
Financial weakness
The financial weakness of the union may be attributed to the small size of union and poor ability of its members to contribute. The other reasons are low subscriptions and irregular payments of subscriptions by the members.
Leadership issues
Another disquieting feature of the trade unions is the ‘outside’ leadership, i.e. leadership of trade unions by persons who are professional politicians and lawyers and who have no history of physical work in the industry. There are several reasons for this phenomenon, namely.
‘ The rank and the file are largely illiterate as such they cannot effectively communicate with the management;
‘ The union’s lack of formal power tends to put a premium on the charismatic type of the leader, usually a politician, who can play the role of the defender of the workers against the management;
‘ For ensuring a measure of ‘equation of power’ in collective bargaining where the workers are generally uneducated and have a low status.
‘ For avoiding victimization of worker-office-bearers of the trade unions; and
‘ For lack of financial resources to appoint whole time office-bearers.
These political leaders are inevitably concerned with ‘maximizing their individual standing as political leaders rather than with, maximizing the welfare of their members’. Further, in bigger unions, direct contact with the rank and file membership and the top leaders is missing because of their hold on a number of trade unions in varied fields; they fail to pay adequate attention to any one union. Again, often these union leaders are not adequately aware of the actual needs and pressing problems of the members. They therefore cannot put forth the case of the union effectively.
Outside leadership of the unions leads to political unionism (each union having an allegiance to a different political party), which in turn, leads to multiplicity of unions, leading to intra-union rivalry, which cause low membership leading to unsound finances and in turn, lack of welfare and other constructive activities which may infuse strength into unions and to conduct collective bargaining effectively the unions depend on outside leadership, and the vicious circle thus goes on and on.
Over and again it has been realized that ‘a reorientation of policy is desirable by a switchover to working class leadership’. The National Commissions on Labour gave a good deal of thought to the issue whether outside leadership should be retained. It felt that, ‘there should be no ban on non-employees holding positions in the executive body of the unions as that would be a very drastic step’. The Commission also refers to the ILO convention (No. 87) concerning ‘freedom of association’ and protection of the right to organize, and the workers’ organisation shall have the right to elect their representative in full freedom.
The commission’s own estimate was that outsiders in the unions executive bodies would be about 10%, much less than the number legally permitted. It makes the following recommendations to deal with the problem of outside leadership:
‘ Ex-employees of an industrial enterprise should not be treated as outsiders;
‘ Intensification of worker’s education;
‘ Penalties for victimization and similar unfair labour practices such as would discourage the growth of internal leadership;
‘ Intensification of efforts by trade union organizers to train workers in union organization.
‘ Limiting the proportion of outsiders in the union execute;
‘ Establishing a convention that no union office-bearer will concurrently hold an office in a political party.
Hence, leadership should be promoted from within the rank and file and given a more responsible role. Initiative should come from the workers themselves through the launching of a vigorous programme for Workers’ Education. This will enable them to participate in the decision-making and managing the union affairs effectively.
Politicalisation of the unions
One of the biggest problems of the country’s trade union movement faces is the influence of the political parties. i.e., the most distressing feature is its political character. Harold Crouch has observed, ‘Even to the most casual observer of the Indian trade union scene, it must be clear that much of the behaviour of Indian unions, whether it be militant or passive behaviour can be explained in political terms.
Dr. Raman’s observations are: ‘Trade union multiplicity in India is directly traceable to the domination and control of the trade union movement by rival political parties. The clay of unionism is possibly an effervescent industrial labourers, but the sculptors chiseling it into shape have certainly been members of political parties.
In a recent study, Dr. Pandey had reached the conclusion: ‘The unions are closely aligned with political parties, and political leaders continue to dominate the unions even now. The supreme consequence of political involvement of unions in India in general, formed to safeguard and promote the social and economic interests of workers, have tended to become tools of party politics’.
It should be noted that decisions in the trade union fields are taken by the respective political parties to which the unions are attached and, therefore, with the changing political situation, the decisions also change. With the split in the political ideology, there develops factional split in the same trade union professing the same political ideology. The divisions and sub-divisions, thus made, have affected adversely the trade union movement. It has become fragmented and disjointed. Each section pulls itself in different directions; with the result that ‘instead of becoming a unity and mighty torrential river, the movement is sub-divided into numerous rivulets’.
Dr. Raman ahs very aptly conclude that: ‘The use of political methods by trade unions may be to their advantage, but the union cause is endangered when unions allow themselves to become pawns in political fights. Political unionism has prevented the development of a movement or organisation that could be termed the workers’ own and turned the soil upside down to such a degree that it has become impossible for a genuine labour-inspired, labour-oriented, worker-led trade union movement to take root’.
Problems of recognition of trade unions
This is one of the basic issues in our industrial relation system because employers are under no obligation to give recognition to any union. In the initial stages, the attitudes of the employers towards the trade unions have been very hostile. The employers many a times have refused recognition to trade unions either on the basis that unions consist of only a minority of employees; or that two or more unions existed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR FOR STRENGTHENING TRADE UNIONS
The National Commission on Labour has made a large number of recommendations on different aspects of trade unions, as given below;
Enlargement of functions
The N.C.L. has stated that the ‘unions must pay greater attention to the basic needs of its members which are:
‘ to secure for workers fair wages;
‘ to safeguard security of tenure and improved conditions of service;
‘ to enlarge opportunities for promotion and training;
‘ to improve working and living conditions;
‘ to provide for educational, cultural and recreational facilities;
‘ to cooperate in and facilitate technological advance by broadening the understanding of workers on its underlying issues;
‘ to promote identity of interests of the workers with their industry;
‘ to offer responsible cooperation in improving levels of production and productivity, discipline, and high standard of quality; and generally
‘ To promote individual and collective welfare’.
In addition, ‘unions should also undertake social responsibilities such as
‘ promotion of national integration,
‘ influencing the socio-economic policies of the community through active participation in the formulations of these policies, and
‘ Instilling in their members a sense of responsibility towards industry and community’.
The main objective should be to draw unions as closely as possible into the entire development process.
Leadership
Regarding leadership the N.C.L. has recommended that ‘(i) There should be not ban on non-employees holding the position in the executive of the unions; (ii) steps should taken in to promote international leadership and give it more responsible role (iii) internal leadership should be kept outside the pale of victimization; (iv) permissible limit of outsiders in the executive of the unions should be reduced to 25%; and (v) ex-employees should not be treated as outsiders’.
Union rivalries
In regard to union rivalries, the Commission was of the opinion that its recommendation regarding recognition of unions, building up of internal leadership, shift to collective bargaining and institution of an independent authority for union recognition would reduce them. Intra-union rivalries should be left to the central organisation concerned to settle and if it is unable to resolve the dispute the Labour Court should be set up at the request of either group or on a motion by the government.
Registration
The Commission has recommended that registration should be cancelled if: (a) its membership fell below the minimum prescribed for registration; (b) the union failed to submit its annual; (c) it submitted defective returns and defects were not rectified within the prescribed time; and (d) an application for re-registration should not be entertained within six months of the date of cancellation of registration.
Improvement of financial condition
To improve the financial conditions of the unions, the Commission recommended for the increase of membership fees.
Verification of membership
The Industrial Relations Commission should decide the representative character of a union, either by examination of membership records or if it consider necessary by holding an election by secret ballot open to all employees.
Recognition of the unions
The N.C.L. has been of the opinion that, ‘it would be desirable to make recognition compulsory under a Central Law in all undertakings employing 100 or more workers or where the capital invested in above a stipulated size. A trade union seeking recognition as a bargaining agent from an individual employer should have a membership of at least 30 per cent of workers in that establishment. The minimum membership should be 25 per cent, if recognition is sought for an industry in a local area’.
Trade Unionism in the International Context
To be understood in the international context, trade unionism must be examined as part of a wider concept-the labour movement as a whole. That movement consists of several more or less intimately relative related organization such as labour parties, workers’ mutual insurance organisations, producers’ or consumers’ cooperatives, and workers’ education and sports association. All have the common objective of improving the material, cultural, and social status of their members.
What distinguishes one organisation from another is the particular aspects of that broad objective it is endeavouring to pursue, and the particular method it employees. The relationship among the various parts of the labour movement varies from country to country and from period to period. Not all countries have produced the entire gamut of organisation referred to above; in some countries the term ‘labour movement’ is virtually synonymous with ‘trade unionism’.
Origins and background of the trade union movement
Early forms of labour organisations
Union oriented, mainly in Great Britain the U.S.A in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as, associations of workers using the same skill. There is no connection between trade unions and medieval craft guilds, for the latter were composed of master craftsmen who owned capital and often employer several workers. The early unions were formed a partly as social clubs but soon became increasingly concerned with improving wages and working conditions, primarily by the device of collective bargaining. Progressing from trade to trade within the same city or area, the clubs formed local associations which, because they carried on their main activities on a purely local level, were almost self-sufficient. With industrial development, however, local associations sooner or later followed the expansion of production beyond the local market and developed into national unions of the same trade. These in turn formed national union federations.
Factors favouring unionism
The unions of the early 19th century were almost exclusively based upon a particular craft. But as mass production industries ‘ which required large numbers of rapidly trained, semiskilled workers ‘ developed, a trend toward large-scale union organisation grew, and toward the end of the 19th century Great Britain was including unskilled workers. Unions that recruited members from such groups ‘ whose ranks were expanding rapidly as a result of new technologies ‘ emerged either as industrial unions or as general unions. Industrial unions attempted to organize all works employed in producing a given product or service, sometimes including even the general office or white-collar workers. General unions included skilled workers and labourers of all grades from different industries, even though they usually started from a base in one particular industry. But changing technologies, union mergers, and ideological factors led to the development of various kinds of unions that would not fit easily into any of the above categories.
Obstacles to union organisation
In most Western countries, labour movements arose out of the protest of workers and intellectuals against social and political systems based upon discrimination according to ancestry, social status, income and property. Such a system offered few avenues for individual or collective advancement. Discrimination in political franchise (restriction on or outright denials of the vote) and a lack of educational opportunities, anti-union legislation, and the whole spirit of a society founded upon acknowledged class distinction were the main sources of the social protest at the root of modern labour movements.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION ORGANISATION
The large trade union movements of various countries for many years have maintained loose alliances by joining international organisations of labour; federations of unions, rather than individual unions, usually hold membership. In 1901, the International Federation of Trade Unions was established, chiefly under the guidance of German unions. It proved to be ineffective and disappeared during World War I. In 1919 it was revived at Amsterdam, but immediately came into collision with the Red International of Labour Unions, established by the new government of the Soviet Union. The Communist organisation had a brief period of expansion but soon dwindled away and had disappeared before 1939.
World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU)
Origin
The WFTU was founded in 1945 on a worldwide basis, representing trade union organisations in more than 50 Communist and Non-Communist countries. From he outset, the American Federation of Labour declined to participate. In January 1949, with the WFTU under Communist control, British, USA and Netherlands trade union organisations withdrew and went on to found the ICFTU; by June 1951 all Non-Communist trade unions and the Yogoslav Federation had withdrawn.
By the 1990s, after the collapse of the European Communist regimes, membership became uncertain; unions broke their links with the Communist parties and most were later accepted into the ICFTU. Most of the national trade union centers in Africa and Latin America moved to the ICFTU after 1989, and the French Confederation Generale du Travail has proposed withdrawal to its members.
At the Nov. 1994 Congress in Damascus, most WFTU delegates come from the developing countries (Cuba, India, South Korea, Vietnam).
In a move towards decentralization, regional offices have been set up in New Delhi (India), Havana (Cuba), Dakar (Senegal), Damascus (Syria) and Moscow (Russia).
World Confederation of Labour (WCL)
Founded in 1920 as the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, it went out of existence in 1940 as a large proportion of its 3.4 million members were in Italy and Germany, where affiliated unions were suppressed by the Fascist and Nazi regimes. Reconstituted in 1945 and declining to merge with the WFTU or ICFTU, its policy was based on the papal encyclicals Return novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo anno (1931), and in 1968 it became the WCL and dropped its openly confessional approach.
Today, it has Protestant, Buddhist and Moslem member confederations, as well as a mainly Roman Catholic membership. In its concern to defend trade union freedoms and assist trade union development, the WCL differs little in policy from the ICFTU above. A membership of 11 million in about 90 countries is claimed. The biggest group is the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) of Belgium (1.2 million).
Organisation
The WCL is organized on a federative basis which leaves wide discretion to its autonomous constituent unions. Its governing body is the Congress, which meets every 4 years. The Congress appoints (or re-appoints) the Secretary-General at each 4-yearly meeting. The General Council which meets at least once a year, is composed of the members of the Confederal Board (at least 22 members, elected by the Congress) and representatives of national confederations, international trade federations, and trade union organisations where there is not confederation affiliated to the WCL. The Confederal Board is responsible for the general leadership of the WCL, in accordance with the decisions and directive of the Council and Congress. Its headquarters is at Belgium. There are regional organisation in Latin America (Caracas), Africa (Banjul, Gambia) and Asia (Manila) and a liaison centre in Montreal.
A much smaller international organisation, the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (IFCTU), now called the WCL (World Confederation of Labour), is made up largely of Catholic labour unions in France, Italy and Latin America. The ICFT, at its founding congress in 1949, invited the affiliates of the IFCTU to join, but the invitation was rejected. On the international scene, the WCL has been a comparatively ineffective organisation. Its influence limited to a few countries in Europe and Latin America.
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
Origin
The founding congress o f the ICFTU was held in London in December 1949 following the withdrawal of some Western trade unions from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), which had come under Communist Control. The constitution, as amended, provides for cooperation with the UN and the ILO, and for regional organisation to promote free trade unionism, especially in developing countries. The ICFTU represents some 124m. Workers across 196 affiliated organizations in 136 countries.
Aims
The ICFTU aims to promote the interests of the working people and to secure recognition of worker’s organisation as free bargaining agents; to reduce the gap between rich and poor; and to defend fundamental human and trade union rights. In 1996, it campaigned for the adoption by the WTO of a social clause, with legally binding minimum labour standards.
Organisation
The Congress meets every 4 years. It elects the executive Board of 50 members nominated on an area basis for a 4-years period; 5 seats are reserved for women nominated by the Women’s Committee; and the Board meets at least once a year, Various Committees cover economic and social policy, violation of trade union and other human rights, trade union cooperation projects and also the administration of the International Solidarity Fund. There are joint ICFTU-International Trade Secretariat Committees for coordinating activities.
The ICFTU has its headquarters at Belgium; branch offices in Geneva and New York, and regional organizations in America (Caracas), Asia (Singapore) and Africa (Nairobi)
Purposes of ICFTU
Striving for world peace, the spreading of democratic institutions, increasing the standard of living for workers everywhere, a worldwide strengthening of free trade unions, and support to colonial people in their struggle for freedom. The ICFTU consistently opposed Fascist as well as Communist dictatorships, and implemented that policy by giving such aid as was possible to free labour in Spain and certain Latin American countries. It also furnished direct financial assistance to workers in Hungary and Tibet and campaigned against racialist policies in South Africa.
Failures and successes of the ICFTU
Lack of homogeneity among affiliates hindered the activity of the ICFTU in many fields, chiefly because of difference among its affiliates in the approach to unions in Communist-controlled countries. It found its work to be most effective in the area of international education. By 1960 it has created an international Solidarity Fund of $2,000,000 to aid workers who became victims of oppression and to promote democratic trade unionism in economically under developed countries. Problems of union organization were discussed at ICFTU seminars in various parts of the world, with experienced labour leaders and labour spokesmen from the less industrialized countries participating.
To facilitate the functioning of its widespread activities, the ICFTU established headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, with regional or sub regional offices in many other countries. Form one or more of those centres it conducted numerous educational conferences, maintained a residential trade union training college in Calcutta, India and assisted in founding an African Labour College in Kampala, Uganda. It provided assistance to inexperienced works in areas in the first stages of industrialization and sent organizers to Lebanon, Okinawa, Cyprus, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and elsewhere.
It has been the consistent policy of the ICFTU to cooperate with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation and with the International Labour Office in Geneva. It is wholly financed by contributions from its affiliates.
International Labour Organisation (ILO)
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was set up in 1919 by the Versailles Peace Conference as an autonomous body associated with the League of Nations. The ILO was the only international organisation that survived the Second World War even after the dissolution of its parent body. It became the first specialized agency of the United Nations in 1946 in accordance with an agreement entered into between the two organizations. India has been a member of the ILO since its inception. A unique feature of the ILO, as distinct from other international institutions, is its tripartite character.
The aims and objectives of ILO are set out in the preamble to its Constitution and in the Declaration of Philadelphia (1944) which was formally annexed to the Constitution in 1946. The preamble affirms that universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice, draws attention to the existence of conditions of labour involving injustice, hardship and privation of a large number of people, and declares that improvement of these conditions is urgently required through such means as the regulation of hours of work, prevention of unemployment, provision of an adequate living wage, protection of workers against sickness, disease, and injury arising out of employment, protection of children, young persons and women, protection of the interests of migrant workers, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, and organisation of vocational and technical education. The Preamble also states that the failure of any nation to adopt human conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations desiring to improve labour conditions in their own countries.
The three main functions of the ILO are;
‘ To establish international labour standards;
‘ To collect and disseminate information on labour and industrial conditions; and
‘ To provide technical assistance for carrying ort programmes of social and economic development.
From the very beginning, the ILO has been confronted with the tremendous task of promoting social justice by improving the work and conditions of life in all parts of the world.
The ILO consists of three principal organs, namely, the International Labour Conference, the Governing Body and the International Labour Office. The work of the Conference and the Governing Body is supplemented by that of Regional Conferences, Regional Advisory Committees, Industrial Committees, etc. The meeting of the General Conference, held normally every year, are attended by four delegates from each member State, of whom two are government delegates and one each representing respectively the employers and the work people of the State. The International Labour Conference is the supreme organ of the ILO and acts as the legislative wing of the Organisation. The General Conference elect the Governing Body, adopt the Organization’s biennial programme and budget, adopt international labour standards in the form of conventions and Recommendations and provide a forum for discussion of social and labour issues. The Governing Body is the executive wing of the Organisation. It appoints the Director-General, draws up the agenda of each session of the Conference and examines the implementation by member countries of its Conventions and Recommendations. The International Labour Office, whose headquarters are located at Geneva, provides the secretariat for all conferences and other meetings and is responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the administrative and other decisions of the Conference, the Governing Body, etc. The Director-General is the chief executive of the International Labour Office. An important aspect of its work relates to the provision of assistance to member States. It also serves as a clearing house of information on all labour matters.
In order to achieve its objective, the ILO has relied on its standard-setting function. The international labour standards take the form of Conventions and Recommendations. A Convention is a treaty which, when ratified, creates binding international obligations on the country concerned. On the other hand, a Recommendation creates no such obligations but is essentially a guide to national actions. The ILO adopted a series of Conventions and Recommendations covering hours of work, employment of women, children and your persons, weekly rest, holidays leave with wages, night work, industrial safety, health, hygiene, labour inspection, social security, labour-management, relations, freedom of association, wages and wage fixation, productivity, employment, etc. One of the fundamental obligations imposed on governments by the Constitutions of the ILO is that they must submit the instruments before the competent national or State or provincial authorities within a maximum period of 18 months of their adoption by the Conference for such actions as might be considered practicable. These dynamic instruments continue to be the principal means at the disposal of the ILO to strive for establishing a just, democratic and changing social order necessary for lasting peace. In fact, these instruments have been included in the category of ‘international labour legislation’. These Conventions and Recommendations taken together are known as the ‘International Labour Code’. Wilfred Jenks describes the International Labour Code as the corpus juries of social justice.
Industrial Relations Strategy
State intervention in the settlement of industrial disputes started with the Trade Disputes Act, 1929. The Act vested Government with powers which could be used whenever it considered fit to intervene in industrial disputes. It provided for only ad hoc conciliation boards and courts of enquiry. The amending Act of 1938′ authorized the Central and Provincial Governments to appoint conciliation officers for mediating in or promoting the settlement of disputes. The Act, however, was not used extensively, as the Government policy at that time continued to be one of laissez faire and selective intervention at the most. Where Government intervened, the procedure consisted of appointing an authority which would investigate into the dispute and make suggestions to the parties for settlement or allow the public to react on its merits on the basis of an independent assessment.
Provincial Legislation
While this was the position in the country as a whole, a more purposeful intervention in industrial disputes was attempted in one of the industrially advanced Provinces’the Bombay Presidency. The Bombay Trade Disputes (Conciliation) Act, 19342, introduced for the first time a standing machinery to enable the State to promote industrial peace. A permanent cadre of conciliators was envisaged for settling matters which fell within their jurisdiction. The scope of the Act was limited to selected industries. The experience of the working of the Act, though in a limited sphere, led to the enactment of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938 (BID Act). The important features of this new Act were the provisions for (a) compulsory recognition of unions by the employer, (b) giving the right to workers to get their case represented either through a representative union, or where no representative union in the industry/centre or in the unit existed through elected representatives of workers or through the Government Labour Officer, (c) certification of standing orders which would define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment and make them known to workmen, (d) the setting up of an Industrial Court, with original as well as appellate jurisdiction, to which parties could go for arbitration in case their attempts to settle matters between themselves or through conciliation did not bear fruit, and (e) prohibition of strike/lock-out under certain conditions. This law was made applicable only to some industries in the Province. Shortly thereafter, the Government of India promulgated the Defence of India Rules to meet the exigencies created by the
Second World War. Rule 81 A gave powers to the appropriate Governments to intervene in industrial disputes, appoint industrial tribunals, and enforce the award of the tribunals on both sides. The BID Act was amended during the war years to provide for compulsory adjudication in unresolved disputes. The BID Act was replaced by a more comprehensive legislation, viz., the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act), but with the basic structure of the BID Act unchanged. At about the same time, the Government of India placed on the statute book the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which provided for the framing and certification of Standing Orders covering various aspects of service conditions including the classification of employees, procedures for disciplinary actions and the like. In a way, this piece of legislation filled a void that existed in the Central industrial relations legislation.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The emergency war legislation (Rule 81A of the Defence of India Rules) was kept in operation pending the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act), which replaced the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, from April 1, 1947, With subsequent amendments, the I.D. Act still continues to be the main instrument for Government’s intervention in labour disputes. The I.D. Act provides for settlement of industrial disputes through conciliation and adjudication. The Act empowers the appropriate Government to appoint conciliation officers and/or constitute Boards of Conciliation to mediate in, and promote settlement of, industrial disputes. It also empowers the appropriate Government to refer disputes for adjudication by an industrial tribunal. The Act makes a distinction between disputes arising in public utility services and those in other industries and provides for compulsory conciliation and adjudication to resolve the former. Besides, the appropriate Government could constitute a Court of Enquiry to enquire into matters pertaining to an industrial dispute. Restrictions are placed on strike/lock-out in public utility services, and during the pendency of conciliation and adjudication proceedings. The procedures and machinery provided under the I.D. Act have been modified from time to time in the light of the actual working of these provisions, the decisions of the judiciary and the influence of the bipartite and tripartite agreements.
The period 1947-50 witnessed some important developments having a hearing on industrial relations, apart from a basic change in the attitudes of employers and workers. The Central Government was made the appropriate Government for
disputes in Banking and Insurance, as these industries extended over more than one State/Province. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 was amended to provide for compulsory recognition of unions.1 The Labour Appellate Tribunal was set up. The work of the tripartite bodies associated with the Labour Ministry started expanding. Comprehensive legislation was drawn up in the form of a bill for putting industrial relations on a sounder footing.
Plan Policies
The First Plan stressed the need for industrial peace for economic progress. While it wanted the State to arm itself with powers for intervention in labour disputes, the endeavour had to be to encourage mutual settlement, collective bargaining and voluntary arbitration to the utmost extent, and thereby to reduce to the minimum, occasions for its intervention in industrial disputes and exercise of the special powers2. The Indian Labour Conference which met as these recommendations were formulated favoured the retention of powers by Government to refer matters to industrial tribunals rather than sole reliance on collective bargaining. The I.D Act was amended in 1953 to provide for compensation in case of lay-off and retrenchment. The working of the Labour Appellate Tribunal (LAT) came up for criticism in tripartite meetings and a decision was taken in pursuance of the strong feelings expressed in these meetings, particularly by the labour representatives, that the LAT should be abolished. The Second Plan envisaged a marked shift in the industrial relations policy consequent on the acceptance of the socialist pattern of society as the goal of planning. It emphasized mutual negotiations as the effective mode of settling disputes. Among the other recommendations in the Plan were demarcation of functions between works committees and unions, and increased association of labour with management. The I.D. Act was amended in 1956. The LAT was abolished through this amendment and a three-tier system of original tribunals’viz., labour courts, industrial tribunals and national tribunals’was brought in force. While the labour court would deal with certain matters regarding the propriety and legality of an order passed by the employer under the standing orders, and discharge and dismissal of workmen including reinstatement, the industrial tribunal adjudicates on matters like wages, allowances, hours of work, leave and holidays and other conditions of service. The national tribunal, to which matters similar to those adjudicated upon by a tribunal are referred, is appointed by the Central Government to decide disputes which involve questions of national importance and those which affect industrial establishments situated in more than one State. The 15th Session of the Indian Labour Conference took note of these developments and the Second Plan recommendations and sought to evolve steps for their implementation. The Code of Discipline3 was drawn up and arrangements were made to educate workers through a scheme accepted by the tripartite.
Complaints about non-implementation of agreements, settlements and awards were in the meanwhile disturbing the industrial scene. On the administrative side, provision was made to examine such complaints and place the conclusions thereof before a tripartite Evaluation and Implementation Committee. The foundations were thus laid for a policy of giving to the parties themselves a greater share in ensuring better enforcement of agreements, settlements and awards. The Third Plan did not suggest any major change in policy. It emphasized the economic and social aspects of industrial peace and elaborated the concept that workers and management were partners in a joint endeavour to achieve common ends. The voluntary arrangements agreed to in the Second Plan were strengthened by the Industrial Truce Resolution, 1962, adopted in the wake of the Chinese aggression. The I.D. Act was amended in 1965 with a view to giving an individual worker the right to raise a dispute connected with his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service, even if the cause of the individual workman was not espoused by any union or group of workmen.
To sum up, the existing arrangements for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes consist of (a) statutory procedures and (b) voluntary arrangements. The former are covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and certain similar State enactments. In essential details, the machinery provided for under the various enactments consists of works/joint committee, conciliation, voluntary arbitration, and adjudication by tribunals or industrial courts. Voluntary arrangements provide inter alia for recognition of unions, where no statutory provisions for it exist, the framing of a grievance procedure, reference of disputes to voluntary arbitration, setting up of joint management councils, implementation of agreements, settlements and awards and the setting up of industry-wise wage boards.
Industrial Relations Machinery
As has been mentioned, the present machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes comprises: (i) conciliation, (ii) arbitration and (iii) adjudication machinery’tribunals, industrial courts, etc. It is proposed to discuss in what follows the salient features of some of these existing arrangements for the settlement of industrial disputes and assess their working during the last twenty years with a view to evolving recommendations for the future. The topics included are (i) Collective Agreements; (ii) Conciliation; (iii) Voluntary arbitration; and (iv) Adjudication. The relative merits and demerits of adjudication and collective bargaining as also issues connected with the right, to strike/lockout form part of the discussion.
Collective Agreement
Except for the industrial relations legislation in some States where arrangements for recognition of unions exist, there is no statutory recognition of unions for the country as a whole. Neither are there provisions which require employers and workers to bargain in ‘good faith’. It is, therefore, no surprise that collective agreements have not made much headway in the country so far. Nonetheless, there have been more of such agreements than is popularly believed. Some historical factors have also come in the way of collective agreements having a greater share in maintaining industrial harmony. The Whitley Commission found that the only attempt made to set up machinery for regulating the relations between a group of employers and their work-people was at Ahmedabad. Though the assessment of the Whitley Commission was made soon after the Trade Unions Act, 1926 was enforced; the situation did not change significantly in the period 1931 to 1947. Since Independence, however, trade unions have been growing and agreements with employers have become more common. The changing attitude of employers and the emergence of a new generation of employers and workers have also helped. Legal measures, in spite of their limitations, have lent as much support to collective agreements as joint consultations in bipartite and tripartite meetings at the national and industry levels. Even so, a sample study made by the Employers’ Federation of India for the years 1956-1960 reveals that the number of disputes settled by collective agreements during the period in question varied between 32 per cent and 49 per cent in the units studied.
Broadly, the agreements have been of three types: (i) agreements which have been drawn up after direct negotiations between the parties and are purely voluntary in character for purpose of their implementation; (ii) agreements which combine the elements of voluntariness and compulsion i.e., those negotiated by the parties but registered before a conciliator as settlements; and (iii) agreements which acquire legal status because of successful discussion between the parties when the matters in dispute were under reference to industrial tribunals/courts and could be considered sub judice, the agreements reached being recorded by the tribunals/courts as consent awards. Most of the collective agreements have been at the plant level, though in important textile centres like Bombay and Ahmedabad, industry level agreements have been common. These have a legal sanction under the State 322 Acts and have to be distinguished from others where no statutory sanction prevails. Such agreements are also to be found in the plantation industry in the South and in Assam, and in the coal industry. Apart from these, in new industries like chemicals, petroleum, oil refining and distribution, aluminium, manufacture of electrical and other equipment, and automobile repairing, arrangements for settlement of disputes through voluntary agreements have become common in recent years. In ports and docks, collective agreements have been the rule at individual centres. On certain matters affecting all ports, all-India agreements have been reached. In the banking industry, after a series of awards, the employers and unions are in recent years coming closer to reach collective agreements. In the Life Insurance Corporation of India, except for the employers’ decision to introduce automation which has upset industrial harmony in some centres, there has been a fair measure of discussion across the table by the parties for settling differences. On the whole, the record of reaching collective agreements has not been unsatisfactory, though its extension to a wider area is certainly desirable.
Conciliation
The aim of conciliation under the I.D. Act and under similar State Acts is to bring about a settlement in disputes through third party intervention. The conciliation machinery can take note of a dispute or apprehended dispute either on its own or when approached by either party. Under the I.D. Act, conciliation is compulsory in all disputes in public utility services and optional in other industrial establishments. Over the years, the optional provisions appear to be acquiring compulsory status in non-public utilities also. With a view to expediting conciliation proceedings, time-limits have been prescribed’14 days in the case of conciliation officers and two months in the case of a board of conciliation. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation is binding for such period as may be agreed upon between the parties or for a period of six months and will continue to be binding until revoked by either party. The Act prohibits a strike/lockout during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Board and for seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. While the conciliation officer is given the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 only for the purposes of compelling the production of documents, a Conciliation Board, like a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, is in addition given the powers of a civil court to enforce attendance of persons, examine them on oath and call witnesses. The performance of the conciliation machinery as indicated by statistics does not appear to be unsatisfactory. During the years 1959’66, out of the total disputes handled by the Central Industrial Relations Machinery each year, the percentage of settlements has varied between 57 and 83. The remaining disputes, it is reported, were settled mutually, referred to voluntary arbitration or arbitration under the I.D. Act or to adjudication, or were not pursued by the parties. While such has been the performance of the Central Industrial Relations Machinery, the success achieved in the States seems to be varied. In some it is impressive; in others disappointing. During the period 1965’67, the percentage of settlements reached in Bihar ranged from 51.0 to 86.0; in Orissa from 27.5 to 35.8 and in Assam from 65.5 to 92.3. In U.P., Punjab and Delhi, in the year 1966, the percentage of disputes settled during conciliation was 60, whereas in Rajasthan it was 40. In the southern region, conciliation is reported to be more successful in Kerala, where the percentage of disputes settled ranged around 80.1 though statistics are not available for Maharashtra and Gujarat, the opinion evidence in these States shows that the machinery on the whole has given a fair measure of satisfaction. It suggests that in many cases the success attributed to conciliation is due merely to the legal requirement to register the agreement. Also, a section of employers’ and workers’ organisations feels that many settlements reached in conciliation are over minor issues. As against this mixed reaction to the working of the conciliation machinery, both employers and workers have expressed dissatisfaction over certain specific aspects of its functioning, such as the delays involved, the casual attitude of one or the other party to the procedure and lack of adequate background in the officer himself for understanding major issues. Delays in conciliation are attributed partly to excessive work load on officers and partly to procedural defects. The evidence shows that delays occur in conciliation often for reasons which are beyond the control of the officer. Initially the parties supply scanty information and adjournments are sought to collect additional information. On occasions, proceedings are adjourned at the instance of one or the other party or even both, to enable them to settle the matter. Since, conciliation involves a good deal of persuasion and is a process of give and take helped by a third party, such adjournments become inevitable and have to be allowed. There are several cases, however, where a party seeks adjournment and the other acquiesces in it informally. And this causes some difficulty in sticking to the time-limit set for conciliation. While on the basis of the statistical information it is difficult to establish the extent of such delays, it would be unfair to criticize the machinery on this account. However, that the attitude of the panics to conciliation is extremely important for the success or failure of the officers’ efforts. Conciliation is looked upon very often by the parties as merely a hurdle to be crossed for reaching the next stage. There is, therefore, casualness about it in the parties and a habitual display of such casualness conditions the conciliator also into that attitude. The representatives sent by the parties to appear before him are generally officers who do not have the power to take decisions or make commitments; they merely carry the suggestions to the concerned authorities on either side. This dampens the spirit of a conciliator. It has told by employers’ and workers’ organizations alike that the conciliation machinery is weakened because of its falling into this type of disuse in recent years. Such disuse has hindered the officers in acquiring a breadth of interest and depth of understanding in the disputes before them. Reverting to the other aspect of delays in conciliation, it is difficult to devise a yardstick for measuring the work-load of an officer and to prescribe work norms for him. Work norms suggested to the Commission, such as 25 disputes of a general nature and 50 individual disputes to be completed in a month as proposed by one Stale, and 300 to 400 disputes per annum as suggested by one of our Working Groups, if applied to the number of cases dealt with at present in conciliation, would in fact mean increasing the strength of the personnel manifold; and this may not be a practicable proposition. Among the other suggestions for improving the effectiveness of conciliation officers are: (i) prescribing proper qualifications for a conciliation officer and improving his quality by proper selection and training; (ii) enhancing his status appropriately for dealing with persons who appear before him; (iii) giving additional powers to the conciliator; and (iv) keeping him above political interference. While (i) is a general point which runs throughout the administration, (ii) is a matter for a body like the Pay Commission the appointment of which have recommended for Central Government employees. No direct evidence of the effect of (iii) and (iv) on the officers’ efficiency is available and yet it would be prudent to recognize opinion evidence in this regard and give satisfaction to parties on these points.
Voluntary Arbitration
Voluntary arbitration as a method of resolving industrial conflicts came into prominence with the advocacy by Mahatma Gandhi of its application to the settlement of disputes in the textile industry in Ahmedabad. The BID Act and the BIR Act recognised voluntary arbitration along with the machinery set up by the State for composing differences between employers and workers. The policies recommended in the Plans specifically mention voluntary arbitration. The I.D. Act was amended to make a provision (Section 10-A) for joint reference of industrial disputes to voluntary arbitration. But apart from the statutory arrangement for recourse to voluntary arbitration, considerable emphasis is placed on this mode of setting disputes in official pronouncements. In spite of all these Governmental efforts, resistance to the idea continues. The Code of Discipline (1958) reiterated the faith of parties in voluntary arbitration and enjoined on employers and workers to resort to it on failure of other methods of resolving differences. In view of the continued reluctance of the parties, more particularly of the employers, the matter came up for discussion at various tripartite forums; but barring stray efforts, the situation of indifference to the idea continued throughout the period 1951’61. The Indian Labour Conference in August, 1962 reiterated the need for a wider acceptance of voluntary arbitration. But, as’ against the emphasis in the Third Plan which considered that voluntary arbitration should be the normal practice in preference to recourse to adjudication, the Conference felt ‘whenever conciliation fails arbitration will be the next normal step except in cases where the employer feels that for some reasons1 he would prefer adjudication’. A proviso, similar to the one which nullified in effect the operation of the need-based minimum2, was added to this resolution of the Conference also in the following words: The reasons for refusal to agree to arbitration must be fully explained by the parties concerned in each case and the matter brought up for consideration by the implementation machinery concerned.’
the Industrial Truce Resolution, November 1962, while reemphasizing voluntary arbitration, specified certain items which were amenable to this way of settling disputes. These were complaints pertaining to dismissal, discharge, victimization and retrenchment of individual workmen not settled mutually. To make voluntary arbitration more acceptable to the parties and to coordinate efforts for its promotion Government has recently set up a National Arbitration Promotion Board (NAPB) with a tripartite composition. The Board will review the position, examine the factors inhibiting wider acceptance of this procedure and suggest measures to make it more popular. The NAPB is also to evolve principles, norms and procedure for the guidance of arbitrators and the parties. It would look into the causes of delay and expedite arbitration proceedings, wherever necessary, and also specify from time to time the type of disputes which would normally be settled by arbitration in the light of tripartite decisions. Voluntary arbitration has not taken root in spite of the influential advocacy for it in different policy making forums. Factors which have contributed to the slow progress of arbitration, as mentioned in the evidence before us, inter alia, are: (i) easy availability of adjudication in case of failure of negotiations; (ii) dearth of suitable arbitrators who command the confidence of both parties; (iii) absence of recognized unions which could bind the workers to common agreements; (iv) legal obstacles; (v) the fact that in law no appeal was competent against an arbitrator’s award; (vi) absence of a simplified procedure to be followed in voluntary arbitration; and (vii) cost to the parties, particularly workers.
With little progress made in collective bargaining, which presupposes the existence of a recognized union representing all the employees and a responsive employer, who together build up over a period an attitude of mutual trust and an acceptance of bona fides on the two sides, it is perhaps not a matter for surprise that voluntary arbitration has so far had little success in India. With the growth of collective bargaining and the general acceptance of recognition of representative unions and improved management attitudes, the ground will be cleared, at least to some extent, for wider acceptance of voluntary arbitration. The National Arbitration Promotion Board may then have a better chance of success in the task of promoting the idea. The NAPB should pay special attention to preparing and building up suitable panels of arbitrators.
Adjudication
The ultimate legal remedy for the settlement of an unresolved dispute is its reference to adjudication by the appropriate Government. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, currently empowers the appropriate Government to constitute a labour court, industrial tribunal or national tribunal to adjudicate in a dispute. Association of assessors with a tribunal is permissible for expert advice.
Matters to be referred to a labour court under the I.D. Act are broadly: the propriety and legality of an order of the employer, application and interpretation of the Standing Orders, the legality or otherwise of a strike or a lock-out, and discharge/ dismissal including reinstatement, as listed in the Second Schedule to the Act. Labour courts set up under State legislation also deal with similar issues. Legal practitioners are permitted to appear before the labour courts or tribunals with the consent of the other party and with the permission of the court/tribunal. In the latter case, according to experience so far, the consent has become a mere formality. Unlike the BIR Act, the I.D. Act does not provide for appeal against an order of the labour court. In certain respects, a labour court/industrial tribunal has the power of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Any matter listed in the Second or Third Schedule of the I.D. Act can be referred to an industrial tribunal/national tribunal, the authority for constituting the latter being the Central Government. The Industrial Court under State legislation has, apart from adjudication functions, the power to entertain appeals against the decisions of the Registrar/ Labour Commissioner/ Labour Court/Wage Board constituted under the respective Acts.
It cannot be denied that during the last twenty years the adjudication machinery has exercised considerable influence on several aspects of conditions of work and labour-management relations. Adjudication has been one of the instruments for improvement of wages and working conditions and for securing allowances for maintaining real wages, for standardization of wages, bonus and introducing uniformity in benefits and amenities. It has also helped to avert many work stoppages by providing an acceptable alternative to direct action and to protect and promote the interests of the weaker sections of the working class, who were not well organized or were unable to bargain on an equal footing with the employer. As against these advantages, certain procedural detects and indeed fundamental criticism has been brought to our notice. On the procedural plane it has been told that adjudication is dilatory, expensive, and even discriminatory as the power of reference vests with the appropriate Government. Most of the analysis which has been made in detail with reference to conciliation applies to adjudication as well. On fundamentals, the objections are that the system of adjudication has failed to achieve industrial peace, that it has inhibited the growth of unions and has prevented voluntary settlement of industrial disputes and growth of collective bargaining. While there are certain procedural deficiencies in the present system which needs to be remedied, there is some substance also in each of the fundamental objections mentioned above against the system.
Adjudication was not conceived to prevent all work stoppages; the fact that Government may not refer a dispute to adjudication means that it should be settled, it need be, by direct action. Trade unions have certainly been growing during the period the adjudication system has been in vogue, and where conditions were favourable, voluntary settlement of disputes and collective agreements have been adopted in the last twenty years.
The moot point is whether adjudication inhibits collective bargaining and is antithetical to it. It certainly represents the availability of a third party to settle disputes. But the system, as it has been applicable in our country, did not exclude bipartite agreements. The parties have not been eligible to have such third party intervention directly and hence it could not inculcate in all cases a tendency to avoid mutual agreements. The infrequency of mutual negotiations cannot therefore be all accounted for by the system of adjudication as it has developed. In fact, a major handicap has been the absence of a recognized bargaining agent. But these issues cannot be decided on the basis of empiricism, Therefore, to analyze its efficacy on a broader plane and in terms of its alternative viz., collective bargaining. The place of collective bargaining as a method of settlement of industrial disputes has been debated in India since long, almost since the days of the Whitley Commission. The best justification for collective bargaining is that it is a system based on bipartite agreements, and as such, superior to any arrangement involving third party intervention in matters which essentially concern employers and workers. This is recognized even in our system in principle, but in practice, there seems to be a preference for adjudication.
The evidence appears to favour the increasing adoption of collective bargaining to settle disputes, and a gradual replacement of adjudication. The desire for a shift to collective bargaining has, however, been tempered by a concern in some quarters for avoidance of work-stoppages and of unwarranted disturbances in industrial peace; and in others, by the organizational weakness of labour which cannot yet meet the requirements of effective collective bargaining. There is thus a general preference for collective bargaining with a built-in provision for arbitration in the event of failure of collective bargaining. The idea of leaving a certain area of disputes i.e., public utility services and cases where national interests are involved’where adjudication should be permitted enjoys a large measure of support. The majority view appears to favour the introduction of collective bargaining subject to the above safeguards, in the organized sector, while retaining third party intervention in sectors mentioned earlier and where workers are not organized and conditions of work and wages have yet to reach a satisfactory level.
The advocates of collective bargaining argue that the present system, although giving lip sympathy to collective bargaining, has only perpetuated adjudication; that adjudication, which was expected to be a temporary measure till such time as labour came of age and could bargain with employers on an equal footing has failed to fulfill the expectations; and that it has, by the very logic of its functioning, inhibited the growth of trade unions and made them litigious. The only way, it is argued, is a wholesale rejection of reliance on a third party for settlement of disputes and acceptance of collective bargaining with all its implications, including the right to strike/lockout. In suggesting this, it is conceded that collective bargaining in the initial stages may give rise to industrial strife and work-stoppages on a somewhat larger scale than at present, but there is confidence that this is bound to be a temporary phase and the situation will stabilize after an initial period of uncertainty. Equally strong arguments have been urged in favour of continuing adjudication. It is staled that while adjudication has its defects, it has by and large succeeded in bringing about some measure of industrial peace in the country; that industrial relations would have been worse, and work-stoppages longer and indeed, what is more important, conditions of work would have been less attractive than what they are today, if things had been left to be settled by collective bargaining. Those who argue on these lines feel that the best course in the present situation is to carry on with the existing procedures, trying at the same lime to remove the obvious defects in the system through suitable improvements/modifications to make it more acceptable. Four specific points made in this connection are: (i) the circumstances which necessitated the provision of compulsory adjudication when the industrial disputes law was enacted in 1947, still continue; (ii) the parties, particularly unions, are still unprepared and incapable, because of organizational and other weaknesses, to shoulder full responsibilities of collective bargaining; (iii) immediate withdrawal of State intervention through adjudication will lead to chaos in the industrial field, which the country can ill afford; and (iv) there is always the third party to the dispute, viz., the community; and the State, as representing the community, must have the right to intervene and compel the parties to submit to the decision of an adjudicator. For reasons stated in an earlier paragraph, empirical data can be no guide to settle this controversy.
The arguments in favour of either system cannot be settled on a theoretical plane nor on the basis of foreign experience. With reference to the latter, it could be said that the system adopted in any country will depend on a complex of circumstances which cannot be easily classified. The figures (Table below) of man days lost due to work stoppages per 1,000 persons employed in mining, manufacturing, construction and transport industries for two five-year periods, in three countries which have a political democracy functioning and also a similar system for settlement of industrial disputes, seem to point to the same fact.
In finding a way out, it is recognized that adjudication as it has developed in India has tended to prolong disputes; allegations of political pressures, though often without foundation, have been there. Discretion, though used by the appropriate Government in a fair manner, may appear to the workers/ employers affected to have been unfairly used. On the other hand, collective bargaining as it has developed in the West may not be quite suitable for India; it cannot appropriately co-exist with the concept of a planned economy where certain specified production targets have to be fulfilled. It is envisaged that in a democratic system pressure on Government to intervene or not to intervene in a dispute may be powerful. It may hardly be able to resist such pressures and the best way to meet them will be to evolve a regulatory procedure in which the State can be seen in the public eye to absolve itself of possible charges of political intervention. The requirements of national policy make it imperative that State regulation will have to coexist with collective bargaining. At the same time, there are dangers in maintaining status quo. There is a case for shift in emphasis and this shift will have to be in the direction of an increasingly greater scope for, and reliance on, collective bargaining. But, any sudden change replacing adjudication by a system of collective bargaining would neither be called for nor practicable. The process has to be gradual. A beginning has to be made in the move towards collective bargaining by declaring that it will acquire primacy in the procedure for settling industrial disputes. It follows that conditions have to be created for the success of this proposed change-over. An important pre-requisite of it is the grant of union recognition. We have to evolve satisfactory arrangements for- union recognition by statute as also to create conditions in which such arrangements have a chance to succeed. Apart from this, we have to indicate the place which strike/lockout will have in the scheme we propose. Collective bargaining cannot exist without the right to strike/lock-out. These two aspects are discussed in the reverse order.
Strike/Lock-out
Conceptually, the right to strike/lockout is recognized in all democratic societies; reasonable restraint on the use of this right is also recognized. The degree of freedom granted for its exercise varies according to the social, economic and political variants in the system. For safeguarding public interest, the resort to strike/lockout and, in some cases, the duration of either are subject to rules and regulations either voluntarily agreed to by the par-tics or statutorily imposed. This has been the criterion underlying the earlier legislation for regulating industrial relations in the country. In our current context, the connected issues have to be viewed against the requirements of a planned economy.
Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a distinction is made between a strike/ lock-out in public utilities and in other employments. Industries such as Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, those which supply power, light or water and any system of public conservancy or sanitation are defined as public utility services under the Act, and in respect of certain others enumerated in the First Schedule to the I.D. Act, the appropriate Government is given the discretion to declare them as public utility services. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, makes a strike (or lock-out) in the public utility service illegal if it takes place (i) without giving to the employer a notice of strike within six weeks before striking; (ii) within fourteen days of giving such notice; (iii) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any strike notice, and (iv) during pendency of conciliation proceedings’and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings. In industries in general, a strike or lock-out is prohibited during the pendency of conciliation, arbitration or adjudication proceedings. Besides, the appropriate Government is empowered to issue an order prohibiting the continuance of any strike or lockout in respect of any dispute when a reference is made to a Court/Board/Tribunal.
These provisions by themselves do not seem to have succeeded in curtailing work-stoppages;’ indeed they were not meant to prevent all stoppages. Annexure I gives data on work-stoppages due to industrial disputes since 1946. Labour has also devised new forms of agitation such as go-slow work-to-rule etc which fall beyond the purview of statutory provisions relating to strikes. A suggestion has been made to us to circumscribe all such forms of agitation by suitably widening the definition of strikes. We do not consider that legal restrictions alone will be of any help in reducing strikes or containing the new forms of labour protest. Unless the Government is prepared to take effective action against illegal strikes, and Government may not find it expedient to do so in several cases, a mere classification of concerted action on the part of workers/employers as illegal will only bring the law into disrepute. If, on the other hand, Government is to enforce penalties for an illegal strike/lock-out, it is necessary to make the definition as simple as possible. New forms of labour protests should be treated as misconduct punishable under the service rules or under the standing orders. We would like to refer here to a form of industrial unrest, namely, ‘gherao’ which came to be increasingly resorted to in one part of the country in recent years. Our Study Group on Industrial Relations (Eastern Region) which examined this problem came to a majority conclusion, one member dissenting, that ‘gheraos’, apart from their adverse effects on industry and economy of the country, strike at the very root of trade unionism. We endorse this view and deprecate resort to gheraos which invariably tend to inflict physical duress on the person(s) affected and endanger not only industrial harmony but also create problems of law and order. If such means are to be adopted by labour for realization of its claims, trade unions may come into disrepute. It is the duty of all union leaders therefore to condemn this form of labour protest as harmful to the interests of the working class itself. Heroes cannot be treated as a form of industrial protest since they involve physical coercion rather than economic pressure. In the long run, they may affect national interest. The general view regarding strike/ lock-out as revealed in the evidence before us is that the right to direct action should be allowed following the failure of all the procedures available for settlement of disputes, except in the case of specified industries/ services wherein a stoppage of work may endanger public interest or affect the nation’s economy or threaten the security of the State. Even those who are opposed to any State interference in industrial disputes concede this point. The democratic ideals of the State prevent it from abridging individual freedom, hut its socialist objectives justify the Government’s regulation of such freedom to harmonize it in a reasonable measure with the interests of the society. What seems called for, therefore, is a reconciliation of these two points of view, While we are not in favour of a ban on the right to strike/lock-out, we are also not in favour of an unrestricted right to direct action. In our view the right to strike is a democratic right which cannot be taken away from the working class in a constitutional set-up like ours. Even from the practical point of view, we will not favour such a step. Taking away the right of the workers to strike, may only force the discontent to go underground and lead to other forms of protest which may be equally injurious to good labour-management relations. At the same time, there are certain essential industries/services wherein a cessation of work may cause harm to the community, the economy or the security of the nation itself and as such, even this right may justifiably be abridged or restricted, provided, of course, a specific procedure is laid down for remedies and redressal of grievances. Therefore, in such industries, the right to strike may be curtailed but with the simultaneous provision of an effective alternative like arbitration or adjudication to settle disputes. We do not wish to enumerate the industries/services that should be classified as ‘essential’; the listing of ‘essential’ industries should be left to the Parliament to decide.
It has been brought to our notice that there are instances wherein the leadership of a union has called for a strike without consulting the membership and sometimes even when members were known to be against the strike. No statistical evidence is available to show how widespread this situation is. It can be remedied only by providing for a compulsory strike ballot before a call for direct action is given. One cannot also be certain that once a dispute has gone on to the stage of a strike notice, the leadership will not be in a position to influence the bulk of their members to vote in favour of it. We are inclined to think that our situation in regard to the effects that flow from cessation of work and consequent losses, direct and indirect, warrants the imposition of certain restrictions on recognized unions before launching a strike. We, therefore, suggest that every strike should be preceded by a strike ballot, open to all members of the union concerned and that the strike decision must be supported by 2/3rd of members present and voting. The notice of strike should contain a clause to show that such ballot has been taken and the requirement, about the needed majority has been satisfied.
In this connection, we would attach importance to the issue of a prior notice of strike/lock-out. At present, the law provides for such a notice in case of public utility services only. Wewould recommend its extension to all industries/services. The present provisions in the I.D. Act about other restrictions on strike/lock-out and their regulation seem to meet the situation subject to some modifications that may be called for in the light of our other recommendations.
Recognition of Unions
We attach considerable importance to the matter of recognition of unions. Industrial democracy implies that the majority union should have the right to sole representation i.e., the right to speak and act for all workers and to enter into agreements with the employer. That the need for a provision for union recognition has been realized is evident from the provision in the BID Act and its successor the BIR Act and certain other State Acts (Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan), the amendment incorporated (but not enforced) in the Trade Unions Act, and the Code of Discipline.
Since we will have occasion to refer to the scheme of recognition outlined in the BIR Act later, we propose to mention it in some detail. The BIR Act, 1916 provides for the classification of registered trade unions as (i) Representative Unions (having a membership of not less than 15 per cent employees in any industry in a local area); (ii) Qualified Unions (5 per cent membership in any industry in a local area); and (iii) Primary Unions (15 per cent of employees in an undertaking). Among the unions in a ‘local area’, the order in which the unions will get representation will be the same as indicated above. Unions in each category enjoy certain privileges, as indeed they have obligations. The Act further stipulates that in case no union has the recognised status, workers can either elect their own representatives or allow the Government Labour Officer to speak on their behalf to the employer. Legislation in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has corresponding provisions for recognition. In Bihar, a tripartite committee decides how recognition should be granted to a union. The need for a provision for recognition of unions was stressed in the Second Plan.1 Because of the desire to go slow on legislation, recognition was provided for on a voluntary basis in the Code of Discipline. According to the criteria in the Code, a union claiming recognition should have been functioning at least for a period of one year as a registered union and should have the specified membership. In case more than one union is functioning in an establishment, the membership of all eligible unions is verified by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) if the establishment falls under the Central sphere, or the State Implementation Officer/the State Labour Commissioner in other cases, in accordance with the procedure evolved at the tripartite Standing Labour Committee. Once a union is recognized under the Code, it is entitled to enjoy this status for at least two years from the date of recognition. A union which does not observe the Code can be de-recognized. Thus, over the last ten years, the experience of securing recognition for a union both on a statutory and on a voluntary basis. It shows that the former has distinct advantages. On this point there is a fair measure of support in the evidence before us. It would be desirable to make union recognition compulsory under a Central law, in all undertakings employing 100 or more workers, or where the capital invested is above a stipulated size. A trade union seeking recognition as a bargaining agent from an individual employer should have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the workers in the establishment. If it is for an industry in a local area, the minimum membership should be 25 per cent. Where more unions than one contend for recognition, the union having a larger following should be recognized.
Serious differences exist, however, on the manner in which the following of a union is to be determined: whether it should be by (a) verification of the fee-paying membership of the unions, or (b) election by secret ballot. The issue has long been debated in Central and State Legislatures, tripartite forums and public platforms, but without reaching unanimity. In the evidence before us, we find support in every interest’Governments, employers, workers and independent observers’ to one or the other procedure evenly balanced. Advocates of one method or the other did not seem to recognize the ‘whip’ of their central organizations. That is also the reason why the issue has acquired more importance.
Those in favour of verification of membership base their preference on the premise that (i) it is the support of fee paying, stable membership of a registered trade union that alone should entitle it to the representative status, and (ii) a regular check by a competent authority can satisfactorily determine whether or not the membership claims are genuine. Regular paying membership ensures financial viability of a union and enables it to discharge effectively its other responsibilities. They concede that membership could be open to inflation and even manipulation, but contend that the remedy should be to introduce a greater measure of vigilance in verification arrangements, if necessary by entrusting them to an independent authority They oppose secret ballot on the ground that it would introduce topical political issues about which a union may not be directly concerned as a union and create an election atmosphere, with some leaders making promises which they will never fulfill. Workers in our country, according to this view, are not yet used to making a rational choice of what is good and creative when confronted with demagogic slogans and rousing of emotional sentiments which can be whipped up over any industrial or non-industrial issue. Moreover, regular payment of union dues, on which verification relies, is itself an open vote of workers in favour of a union which submits to verification. Supporters of this line of thought question the appropriate-ness of the analogy of political choice through adult franchise, because there can be no ‘Government and opposition’ in the running of industry. Also secret ballot, in this view, will give a severe blow to the trade union movement itself. In the absence of any qualification prescribed for eligible voters, there can be no incentive for workers to join a union. The supporters of secret ballot, on the other hand, base their case primarily on the ground that it is the most democratic way of expressing a choice. Membership verification as a basis for selection of the representative union is considered unsatisfactory as it is at best an indirect method. When membership records and accounts of subscriptions received are often in an unsatisfactory state, and there are admittedly many questionable ways of boosting membership claims, the task of verification, according to this view, becomes complex. There is the added disadvantage of delay built into the procedure itself.
Rights of Recognized and Other Unions
A union recognized as the representative union under any procedure, should be statutorily given, besides the right of sole representation of the workers in any collective bargaining, certain exclusive rights and facilities to enable it to effectively discharge its functions. Among these are the rights:
i. To raise issues and enter into collective agreements with employers on general questions concerning the terms of employment and conditions of service of workers in an establishment or, in the case of a representative union, in an industry in a local area;
ii. To collect membership fees/subscriptions payable by members to the union within the premises of the undertaking; or demand check-off facility;
iii. To put up or cause to be put up a notice board on the premises of the undertaking in which its members are employed, and affix or cause to be affixed thereon, notices relating to meeting’s, statements of accounts of its income and expenditure and other announcements which are not abusive, indecent, inflammatory or subversive of discipline;
iv. To hold discussions with the representatives of employees who are the members of the union at a suitable place or places within the premises of office/factory/ establishment as mutually agreed upon;
v. To meet and discuss with an employer or any person appointed by him for the purpose, the grievances of its members employed in the undertaking;
vi. To inspect, by prior arrangement, in an undertaking, any place where any member of the union is employed;
vii. To nominate its representatives on the grievance committee constituted under the grievance procedure in an establishment;
viii. To nominate its representatives on statutory or non-statutory bipartite committees, e.g. works committees, production committees, welfare committees, canteen committees, and house allotment committees. On most of these points there is a fair measure of unanimity in the evidence before us.
It is considered that industries, in which workers are organized on an industry/area basis and in which collective bargaining has developed at the industry/area level, should maintain and encourage this practice of recognizing unions at the industry/ area level. Such recognition may give rise to certain problems in regard to the circumstances in which it should be granted and in regard to the rights and functions of plant-wise unions vis-??-vis the industry/area unions, particularly when the majority union at the plant level has no affiliation with the recognized industry /area union. It has been brought to our notice that employers of units in which the industry level recognized union has no following, find themselves in a difficult situation when confronted by the demands of the plant union, which they cannot ignore. This situation can only be set right by a proper demarcation of the rights and functions of the industry/area recognized unions and plant-wise unions, and by ensuring that recognition at the industry/area level is conferred subject to certain well defined conditions. We consider that industry wise recognition is desirable, wherever possible. We are, therefore, not in favour of recognition being granted to plant unions in an area/industry wherein a union has been recognized for an industry/area as a whole. We now come to the related question of the rights to be given to the minority (unrecognized) unions. The view taken by the Indian Labour Conference in 1964 was that minority unions should enjoy the light to represent individual grievances relating to discharge, dismissal and other conditions of service of their members. It was argued by some that. The grant of this right might to a certain extent, reduce the strength of the majority union. When the majority union is recognized as the sole bargaining agent on behalf of all the employees in the undertaking, the question of some employees being represented by a minority union should not arise in so far as general demands/ issues are concerned. However, in regard to certain matters of individual rights and grievances and their representation, the opinion has been in favour of giving some rights, though of a very limited nature, to the minority unions. We recommend that the minority unions should be allowed only the right to represent the cases of dismissal and discharge of their members before the labour court.
Approach
It must emphasize that real industrial harmony is possible only when conditions are created for avoidance/prevention of disputes. While no procedure, however carefully worked out, can entirely eliminate industrial disputes and conflict, frequent discussions between the employer and the representatives of workers will be of considerable assistance in reducing the areas of conflict. The system of industrial relations as it has developed since Independence has kept avoidance of conflict/disputes as one of its two basic objectives, the other being expeditious settlement of disputes when they do arise. The role of Government in pursuit of the former objective cannot be gainsaid. Emphasis has been laid on the creation of the necessary atmosphere for the development of labour management cooperation through the adoption of a suitable institutional frame-work for joint consultation, redress of grievances and the like. It is perhaps true that these procedures which will be discussed in the next chapter in detail were not as effective as expected and this objective could only be partly realized. This is due as much to the absence of certain important factors, such as the existence of a united trade union movement and the provision for recognition of unions as to the emphasis laid on compulsory adjudication for the settlement of disputes. Whatever is the nature or causes of disputes, most of them can be amicably settled, given the goodwill and desire to come to a settlement on the part of the employers and the employees. It is in this context that we emphasize the adoption of procedures which will promote effective bipartite consultations and collective bargaining between the parties.
Industrial Relations Commission
We have referred earlier to certain weaknesses in the working of the existing industrial relations machinery viz., the delays involved, the expenditure, the largely ad hoc nature of the machinery, and the discretion vested in the Government in the matter of reference of disputes. There have also been allegations of political pressures and interference while many of the allegations may not be true; we cannot be oblivious to the fact that in some cases the decisions of Government. This aspect cannot be entirely ignored in training our recommendations. The evidence before us is strongly in support of reforming the industrial relations machinery, so as to make it more effective and more acceptable. What is called for therefore is a formal arrangement which is independent in character, expeditious in its functioning and which is equipped to build up the necessary expertise. We consider that it would not be enough to secure some of these improvements through suitable modifications in the existing machinery. A more basic change is called lor, and this can be ensured only through the replacement of the present ad hoc machinery, by permanent machinery, which will be entirely independent of the administration.
Therefore it is recommended that the setting up of an Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) at the national and State levels, for settling interest disputes, broadly covering matters listed in the Third Schedule to the I.D. Act. The IRC would combine in itself both the conciliation and adjudication functions. We believe that there is a definite advantage in having the conciliation machinery working within the IRC, since both will be concerned with ‘interest’ disputes though at different stages. An interchange of knowledge, information and expertise can thus be ensured. We have also recommended in an earlier section that all matters concerning recognition of a union as a representative union for purposes of collective bargaining should be entrusted to an independent authority. We consider that it would he advantageous to entrust this function also to the proposed IRC. It would obviate the need for creating another independent body. In addition to the IRC, we also suggest the setting up of Labour Courts which would be entrusted with the judicial functions of interpretation and enforcement of all labour laws, awards and agreements. The set up of the proposed machinery will broadly be on the following lines:
A. The Industrial Relations Commission (IRC):
i. There should be a National Industrial Relations Commission appointed by the Central Government for industries for which that Government is the appropriate authority. The National IRG would deal with such disputes which involve questions of national importance or which are likely to affect or interest establishments situated in more than one State, i.e., disputes which are at present dealt with by National Tribunals.
ii. There should be an Industrial Relations Commission in each State for settlement of disputes for which the State Government is the appropriate authority;
iii. The National/State IRC will have three main functions: (a) adjudication in industrial disputes, (b) conciliation and (c) certification of unions as representative unions.
iv. The strength of the National/State Commission should be decided taking into account the possible load on it and the need for expeditious disposal of cases; its membership should not exceed seven.
v. The Commission should be constituted with a person having prescribed judicial qualifications and experience as its President and equal number of judicial and non-judicial members; the non-judicial members need not have qualifications to hold judicial posts, but should be otherwise eminent in the field of industry, labour or management;
vi. Judicial Members of the National Indus ~ trial Relations Commission, including its President, should be appointed from among persons who are eligible for appointment as Judges of a High Court;
vii. The terms and conditions of service and the age of superannuation of the judicial members of the National/ State IRC should be similar to those of the judges of the High Courts.
viii. The President of the National Industrial Relations Commission will be appointed by the Union Government in consultation with a committee consisting of the Chief Justice of India, the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the senior most Chief Justices in the High Court
ix. The other members of the National Industrial Relations Commission will be appointed by the Union Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Chairman of the U.P.S.C and the President of the National Industrial Relations Commission;
x. In regard to the State Industrial Relations Commission, the President of a State IRC will be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the State and the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission;
xi. The other members (of a State Industrial Relations Commission will he appointed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State High Court, the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and the President of the State Industrial Relations Commission;
xii. The Conciliation Wing of the Commission will consist of conciliation officers with the prescribed qualifications and status. In the cadre of conciliators, there will be persons with or without judicial qualifications. Those who have judicial qualification would be eligible for appointment as judicial members of the Commission after they acquire the necessary experience and expertise. Others could aspire for membership in the non-judicial wing;
xiii. The Commission may provide arbitrators from amongst, its members/officers, in case parties agree to avail of such services;
xiv. The Commission may permit its members to serve as Chairmen of the Central/ Stale Wage Boards/Committees if chosen by the Government for such appointment
xv. The functions relating to certification of unions as representative unions will vest with a separate wing of the National State IRC. The National IRC may, where it considers necessary, get the following of the contending unions determined by the State IRCs.
The procedure for the settlement of disputes would be as follows:
i. After negotiations have failed and before notice of strike / lock-out are served, the parties may agree to voluntary arbitration and the Commission will help the parties in choosing an arbitrator mutually acceptable to them.
ii. After negotiations have failed and notice of strike/lock-out has been served, cither party may approach the Commission for naming a conciliator within the Coin-mission to help them in arriving at a settlement during the period covered by the said notice.
iii. In essential industries/services, when collective bargaining fails and when the parties to the dispute do not agree to arbitration, either party shall notify the IRC, with a copy to the appropriate Government, of the failure of such negotiations, whereupon the IRC shall adjudicate upon the dispute and its award shall be final and binding upon the parties.
iv. 1 In the case of ‘Others’ (non-essential industries/ ‘services), following the failure of negotiations and refusal by the parties to avail of voluntary arbitration, the IRC, after the receipt of notice of direct action (but during the notice period), may offer to the parties its good offices for settlement. After the expiry of the notice period, if no settlement is reached, the parties with be free to resort to direct action. If direct action continues for 50 days. It will be incumbent on the IRC to intervene and arrange for settlement of the dispute.’
v. 1 When a strike or lock-out commences, the appropriate Government may move the Commission to call for the termination of the strike/lock-out on tile ground that its continuance may affect the security of the State, national economy or public order, and if after hearing the Government and the parties concerned the Commission is so satisfied, it may for reasons to be recorded call on the parties to terminate the strike/lock-out and file their statements before it. Thereupon the Commission shall
adjudicate on the dispute.
vi. (a) If a State IRC. is seized of any dispute and it appears to the Central Government that the decision on the said dispute is likely to have an impact on similar industrial undertakings in other States, it will be open to the Central Government to move the National IRC; to take the said dispute on its file. When such an application is made the National IRC shall hear the parties concerned, and if it comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to take the case on its file. it shall call for the papers in relation to the said dispute from the State TRC and shall proceed to deal with and decide the dispute. b. Similarly if a State IRC is seized of any dispute and it appears to the National IRC that the decision on the dispute is likely to have an impact on similar industrial undertakings in other States, and if after hearing the parties the National IRC comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to take the case on its file, it will be open to the National IRC to call for the papers in relation to the said dispute from the State IRC and decide the dispute on merits.
vii. When a State IRC is possessed of any dispute, and during the hearing it comes to the conclusion that the decision on the said dispute will have an impact on similar industrial undertakings in other States and that it is desirable that the dispute should be tried by the National IRC, it may, after hearing the parties concerned transmit the case to the National IRC which with thereupon try the said dispute.
viii. Where a dispute is brought before the National IRC, and the Commission after hearing the parties comes to the conclusion that it may be desirable or expedient that the said dispute should be dealt with by the appropriate State IRC it may remit the case to the said State IRC for disposal and on receiving the record of the said dispute, the State IRC shall proceed to deal with it.
ix. If the Commission substantially grants the demands in support of which the strike was called and comes to the conclusion that the said strike was justified because of the refusal of the employer to grant the said demands, the Commission while making its award may direct the employer to pay the employees their wages during the strike period.
x. In case a strike becomes necessary as a result of the changes sought to be introduced by the employer in the terms and conditions of employment of his employees and the Commission comes to the conclusion that the change(s) was/ were not justified and the strike was justified, the employees with be entitled to wages for the period of strike.
xi. If the demands in support of which the strike was called are not granted by the Commission and it holds that the strike was unjustified, wages for the period of the strike with not be granted.
xii. If the Commission holds that demands which led to the lock-out were justified and the lock-out was not justified, the Commission in granting the demands may order that the employees should be paid their wages during the period of the lock-out.
xiii. If the Commission holds that the demands were not justified and the lockout was justified the employees will not he entitled to claim wages for the period of the lockout. xiv. If during the pendency of the strike or thereafter, the employer dismisses or discharges an employee because he has taken part in such strike, it would amount to unfair labour practice’ and on proof of such practice, the employee will be entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
xv. All collective agreements should he registered with the IRC.
xvi. An award made by the IRC in respect of a dispute raised by the recognised union should be binding on all workers in the establishments) and the employer(s).
B Labour Courts
In addition to the Industrial Relations Commission, we also suggest the setting up of standing Labour Courts which would be entrusted with judicial functions of interpretation and enforcement of all labour laws, awards and agreements These courts with deal broadly with disputes relating to matters mentioned in the Second Schedule of the ID. Act, in respect of the industrial relations issues brought to them.
i. There will be a labour court in each State constituted of judicial members only. The strength and location of such courts will be decided by the appropriate Government;
ii. Members of the labour court will be appointed by Government on the recommendations of the High Court. Generally, the Government should be able to choose from a panel given by the High Court in the order in which the names are recommended;
iii. Labour courts will deal with disputes relating to rights and obligations, interpretation and implementation of awards of either the National or State IRC and claims arising out of rights and obligations under the relevant provisions of laws or agreements, as well as disputes in regard to unfair
labour practices and the like.
iv. Labour courts will thus be the courts where all disputes specified in clause (iii) will be tried and their decisions implemented. Proceedings instituted by parties asking for the enforcement of rights falling under the aforesaid categories will be entertained by labour courts which will act in their execution jurisdiction in that behalf. Appropriate powers enabling them to execute such claims should be conferred on them
v. Appeals over the decisions of the labour court in certain clearly defined matters, may lie with the High Court within whose area/jurisdiction the court is located;
Unfair Labour Practices
Provision of legal protection to unions is a corollary to the promotion of healthy industrial relations and recognition of unions as the sole representatives of workers. It is, therefore, important to write into the law provisions to prohibit and penalise unfair labour practices, on the part of both the employer and the recognised union. An attempt was made to define these practices both in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 1947 (not enforced) and in the industrial Relations Bill, 1950. The Code of Discipline (1958) contained a reference to unfair labour practices to be avoided by unions and managements. In February, 1968, the Government of Maharashtra set up a Committee on Unfair Labour Practices’ to define activities which should be treated as unfair labour practices on the part of employers and workers and their organisations and to suggest action to be taken. In its unanimous report presented to the Maharashtra Government in July, 1969, the Committee listed various parts of omission and commission which institute unfair labour practices. The lists are at Annexure II. These could form a suitable basis for the enumeration of unfair labour practices.
We recommend that the law should enumerate various unfair labour practices on the part of employers and on the part of workers’ unions; and provide for suitable penalties for committing such practices. Complaints relating to unfair labour practices will be dealt with by the labour courts. They shall have the power to impose suitable punishments/penalties which may extend to de-recognition in case of unions and heavy fine in case of an employer found guilty of such practices. Having made these recommendations, we think it is necessary to emphasise the fact that the main consideration which has influenced our decision in making these recommendations is that the setting up of the Industrial Relations Commission with two wings will, in the long run, make negotiations between the parties more earnest and serious and thus introduce a new era of successful collective bargaining: We recognise that in the initial stages of the working of this scheme, mutual negotiations may not always succeed; but we hope that here this happens, sustained effort by the Commission’s conciliation wing will materially assist the parties in reaching satisfactory solutions to their problems amicably. If this process continues for some time, the number of industrial disputes which will go before the Commission for its adjudication will gradually decrease and that is the end which we have in mind. We have made these several recommendations in I the confident hope that the end would be achieved if the scheme which we have recommended is accepted by the Government. These recommendations constitute one integral scheme and, for their success, must be given effect to as a whole.
REFERENCES
1. Bhatia, S.K., International Practices in Industrial Relations; Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 2002, pp.7-8.
2. Mamoria, C.B. and S. Mamoria, Dynamics of industrial Relations in India, Himalaya Publishing House, New Delhi, 1995, p. 209
3. Sarma, A.M., Industrial Relations Conceptual & Legal Frame Work, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, 1984, p.3.
4. Scott, W.D., R.C. Clothier and W.R. Spriegal, Personnel Management (sixth edition), McGraw Hill, New York, 1961, p.195.
5. Kumar, C.B., Development of Industrial Relations in India, Orient Longman Ltd., Bombay, 1961, p (ix).
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica, London, Vol.12, 1961, p. 297.
7. Singh, MP., Climate for industrial Relation:: A Study of Kanpur Cotten Mills, Allied publishers, Bombay, 1968.
8. Singh, A.D., ‘Determinants of industrial Relations’, Indian Journal of Labour Economics; 14 (1-2), 1971, pp. 63-66.
9. Gupta, C.B., Human Resource Management, Sultan Chand & Sons, New Delhi, 2004.
10. Kumar, Suresh, Dynamics of Industrial Relations in Contemporary India, Abhishek Publications, Chandigarh, 2002, p.37.
11. Vaidya, S. A., A Psychological Approach to Industrial Relations in B. S. Bhir (Ed.),Dimensions of Industrial Relations in India, 1970, p. 135.
12. Michaeil MP. Industrial Relation in India and Workers involvement in Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, 1979, p.3.
13. Nagaraju,S. Industrial Relations System in lndia, Chugh Publications, Allahabad, 1981,p.4.
14. Kanaga, S.P., Ambuselvam, ‘Industrial Relations An Overview’, Indian Journal of industrial Relations; 39(4), 1996, p. 1107.
15. Singh, M.K. ‘Industrial Relations in Maharashtra’, Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. XLIV (1), 1983, p. 19.
16. Ghosh, P. and Santhoshnath, Labour Relations in India, Sudha Publications (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 1973, p.5.
17. Mamoria, C.B., Industrial Labour and Industrial Relations in India, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, Vol. II, 1976, p.41.
18. Michael, V. R., Industrial Relations in lndia and Workers involvement in Management, Himalaya Publishing House, 1979, Bombay.
19. Chatterjee, Management of Public Enterprises, Surjeet Publishers, Delhi, 1988.
20. Sarma. A.M., Industrial Relations Conceptual & Legal Frame Work, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, 1984.
21. Ministry of Labour (DGE&T), Economic Survey, Government of India, 2003-04.
22. Sinha, G. P. and Sinha R R.N, Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation in India, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1977, pp.237-238.
23. Ramachandran, Nair, Industrial Relations in Kerala, Sterling Publications, New Delhi, 1973.
24. Ramachandran, Nair, Management-Labour interference, Kerala Calling, 1999, pp.9-16
25. Lester R. A. (1968) A study of Industrial Relations, Tata Mcgraw Hill Co. Ltd. New York, 1968.