Industrial Disputes Act

12/4/2017

2 Comments

Buy

Contents

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957
Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957
Industrial Disputes (Banking & Insurance Companies) Act, 1949
Industrial disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955
Industrial Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1949
Industrial Tribunal (Central Procedure) Rules, 1954
Industrial Tribunal (Karnataka Procedure) Rules, 1955
Case Laws

For More Details

Preface

Industrial law in our country is not of recent origin. Even in ancient India eminent jurists like Manu, Yagnavalkya, Kautilya and Narada had enunciated principles relating to industrial matters. They laid down rules regulating the relations between master and servant in the matter of wages, breach of contract, leave, holidays, efficiency bonus and punishment of employees.[1]

The main purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to ensure fair terms between employers and employees, workmen and workmen as well as workmen and employers. It helps not only in preventing disputes between employers and employees but also help in finding the measures to settle such disputes so that the production of the organization is not hampered. In this unit, we are going to discuss the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its importance. This unit encompasses the different authorities and their duties in the settlement of disputes. It also discuss about the reference of disputes.

The Industrial Disputes Act deals with industrial disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the enforcement of the awards and settlements. Thus, by empowering the adjudicator authorities under the Act, to give reliefs such as a reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed or discharged workmen, which may not be permissible in common law or justified under the terms of the contract between the employer and such workmen, the legislature has attempted to frustrate the unfair labour practices and secure the policy of collective bargaining as a road to industrial peace.[2]

“The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure, which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions, provide for the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the partners in production may not be dissipated in counter-productive battles and the assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill.” [3]

The concept of social justice has now become an integral part of industrial law. Its sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic idea of socio-economic equality and its aim is to assist the removal of socio- economic disparities and inequalities. The application of this concept in industrial matters, however, presents the problem of where to draw the line. Industrial adjudication is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law only. It goes much beyond it. It confers rights and privileges which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing law or contract.[4]

Both labour unions and the employers should realize that law cannot be what they want it to be, for, it has limitations on the extent to which it can give legal relief. Attitudinal changes are far more crucial that legal or institutional changes to promote flexibility and to adequately reflect the changing socio-economic cultural conditions of the constituency it seeks to cater to. The degree of maturity in industrial relations and the intensity of legalism and legal sanctions are inversely related. Legal obligations become least significant when industrial relations are harmonious and productive…., It is well to remember that the rights and obligations between the employer and the employee are mutual and reciprocal. Then obligations are not all on one side and the rights and the other…. Therefore both the players in the game, need to develop a shared perspective and learn to make common cause, collaborate and bring about the changes from within and without[5]

To add to the utility of the book several important case laws on various important issues have been given in the “case law” section that contains latest cases up to December 2016.

It is earnestly expected that the Bench, Bar, employers, employees, academicians and every other management professionals would find this book very helpful.

Nataraj M R

Foot Notes
[1] Quoted from the preface of Justice D D Seth, “Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”, 10 Revised edition, Allahabad, Law Publishing House, 2016

[2] Supreme Court of India in the case of HariNandan Prasad &Anr Vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI & Another decided on 17 February 2014, (2014) 7 SCC 190

[3] Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India VsD.J.Bahadur 1980 Lab IC 1218, 1226(SC)

[4] Quoted from the preface of the first edition of P R Bagri “ Law of Industrial Disputes”, 3 Edition, Kolkata, Kamal Law House, 2001

[5] Quoted from the preface of J L Dhar, “Practical guide to Industrial Employment”, 1st Edition, New Delhi, Taxmann Allied Services (P) Ltd, 1999

2 Comments

Prof.H.A.C.POPPEN

4/3/2020 06:29:18 pm

Congratulations on your publication on I.D.Act.
I would like to add some clarifications on the scope of the Act.:
1. The definitions of the terms INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE &WORKMAN in the Act limits the scope of dispute settlement between Employer & WORKMEN. and any dispute with employees not falling under the definition of workman CANNOT BE RAISED OR SETTLED under the Act.
Thus MANAGERS & SUPERVISORS drawing salary above limits notified from time time are EXCLUDED from raising or getting their disputes settled under the Act. These category of employees have to raise their disputes in civil courts for breach of contract. Even if they succeed , they will not get the relief of REINSTATEMENT and can only be awarded Monetary compensation, where as WORKMEN under ID act can claim REINSTATEMENT /Compensation..
The ID ACT ALSO PRECLUDES, CONTRACTOR'S Workmen from raising disputes against their PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER.and such workmen can only raise disputes against the contractor concerned.
Similarly certain categories of employees like TEACHERS & certain category of Professional employees are held to be non -Workmen under the ID Act.
Hope these clarifications will be of use to our HR colleagues.
PROF. H.A.C.POPPEN

Prathap Simha

9/18/2020 06:44:40 am

The assertion in respect of the Contract workmen being precluded to raise dispute against the Principal Employer as averred by Prof. H.A.C. Poppen is incorrect in the eye of law, since no such bar is created under the statutw