Adjudication settlement of industrial disputes with case study.

1. Presented by
Madeha Rafiqi
Jamia Hamdard University

2. Introduction
Causes of Industrial Dispute
Settlement of Industrial Dispute
What is Adjudication?
Case Studies
Conclusion

3. Introduction
What is Industrial Dispute?
• Any Dispute or disagreement between employer and
workers, employer and employers ,worker and workers
which is related to employment in the industry such as
wages, allowances, promotion, discipline, bonus and
other social securities benefits .
• Industrial disputes in industries should be reduced to
minimum so that there is no work stoppage.
• A disputes can arise between
1. Employer – Workman
2. Employer – Employer
3. Workman - Workman

4. Causes of Industrial Dispute
A) Industrial Factors:-
• An industrial matter relating to employment, work, wages, hours
of work, privileges, the rights and obligations of employees and
employers.
• An industrial matter in which both the parties are directly and
substantially interested.
• Dispute arising out of unemployment , inflation.
B) Managements Attitude towards workers:-
• Management ‘s unwillingness to talk over any dispute with their
employees.
• Managements unwillingness to recognize a particular trade union ,
delegating enough authority to the representatives etc.

5. Cont.…
• Unwillingness to negotiation and settlement of disputes.
• Managements unwillingness to provide services and benefits
to its employee's
C) Other Causes:-
• Affiliation of the trade unions with a political party, where the
latter may instigate the trade unions to conduct strikes,
lockouts etc.
• Political instability, center- state relations, sometimes result
into industrial conflict.

6. Settlement of Industrial Dispute
Dispute
settlement
Arbitration Conciliation Adjudication

7. Adjudication
• Adjudication means a mandatory settlement of an industrial dispute by a
labour court or a tribunal. Generally, the government refers a dispute or
adjudication depending on the failure of conciliation proceedings.
• Disputes are generally referred to adjudication on the recommendation of
the conciliation officer who had dealt with them earlier. However, the
government has discretionary powers to accept or reject
recommendations of the conciliation officer. It is obvious that once a
dispute is referred for adjudication, the verdict of a labour court or
tribunal is binding on both the parties.
• The system of adjudication is the most significant instrument of resolving
disputes. But, it has been criticized because of the delay involved in
resolving conflicts. Continued dependence on adjudication deprives the
trade unions of their right to recognize and consolidate their strength.

8. Case 1
Disputing parties
Appellants : M/s. Polypharma Private Limited
(Thane, Daravali and Bhiwandi Units)
Vs
Respondent: The workmen
Duration of case and the date and year of the case
 The duration of the case was 18 years and the final settlement of the
case was decided on 29.09.2000.
 Court: Industrial Court Mumbai

9. Brief facts of the case
1. The dispute in the particular case was with respect of payment of bonus for the
year 1980-81 and also regarding charter of demand with respect of wage revision,
classification and other service conditions of the employees of the company. The
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, was the union of the employees of the
company at the time of referring dispute and the employees were represented by
Kamgar Sabha at a later stage (hereinafter to be referred as "IInd party").
2. In the present case the appellant company M/s. Polypharma Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter
to be referred as ''the company"), was in the business of manufacturing and
supply of vital medicine and chemicals to the Municipal Hospitals and other
concern in the market. The Company employed more than 50 workmen in the
undertaking including casual, daily rated and monthly wage workmen. All of them
were the member of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
3. The service conditions of the employees were governed by a settlement and after
its expiry a charter of demand was submitted by the union to the management for
revision of wage scale and service conditions which was not considered by the
management and after the failure of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to settle
the dispute the matter was referred to the Tribunal. The demands of the union
made in the reference were as follows:

10. Demand 1: Demand for revised wages
Demand 2 & 3: Proper adjustment and classification of
employees
Demand 4: Payment of daily allowance
Demand 5: 30 days Privilege Leave
Demand 6: Leave for sickness
Other demands: Demand for H.R.A, medical allowance, P.F
and extension for retirement age to 60.

11. The issues raised before the Tribunal were as follows:
1. Whether the reference made were maintainable?
2. Whether the Kamgar Sabha had locus standi to proceed with the reference
on behalf of all categories of workmen?
3. Whether Kamgar Sabha was entitled for demands made in the reference?
4. Whether demands made by the Kamgar Sabha were justifiable and
proper?
Court’s observation
1. The first two issues that were raised before the court were that the
reference made by the union was in respect to the staff-members and
therefore the reference was not maintainable and second that the said
reference was initiated by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union so the
present union i.e. Kamgar Sabha had no locus standi to pursue or
prosecutes the said reference. On the first issue the court held that though
there was no settlement with respect of staff-members and their service
conditions were governed by the order of appointment, when the
reference is made with respect of the employees, all employees doing
manual, clerical or technical work are included in it and thus the reference
was maintainable.

12. 2. On the second issue the court observed that the staff- members and
workers had left Maharashtra General Kamgar Union to join Kamghar Sabha
Union. The court observed that it was immaterial whether the employees were
the member of the former or the latter trade union and thus the claim of the
employees couldn’t be rejected on this ground and hence the reference was
maintainable.
3. On the third issue whether Kamgar Sabha union was entitled for demand
made in reference the court observed that with reference to various demands
including the demand for bonus, classification of wages and revision of pay-
scale, a settlement on the suggestion of the Hon’ble High Court was reached
between the Kamgar Union and the company in the year 1997 but the said
settlement was with respect of workmen and not staff-members and therefore
the union was pursuing the present claim of staff-members only. On behalf of
the staff-members it was submitted that except the demand of D.A and the
revision in pay scale, the staff-members were ready to accept rest of the
demands as per the settlement of 1997 and the court observed that except
revision of basic and D.A. rest of the benefits awarded to the workers could
also be extended to the staff-members.

13. 4. With respect to demand of the bonus for the year 1980-81 and
1981-82 the court observed that as per the settlement of year 1997
bonus was paid at 8.33% to the workmen and since no sufficient
evidences were adduced before the court with respect of raising the
rate of bonus the Company should pay Bonus @ 8.33% to the staff
members if it is not paid till this time.
5. On the fourth issue whether the demands made by Kamgar Sabha
were justifiable and proper the court held that staff members who
were covered by the reference were equally entitled to the benefits
as per settlement of 1997 and were also entitled to Dearness
Allowance @ Rs. 65 per day along and granted them equal benefits
like the workers and held that the demands made by the union with
respect of staff members were justifiable.

14. 6. The court also allowed the following demands regarding service
conditions of staff members in its order:
a) Dearness allowance @Rs. 52 from April 1997 to April, 1998 raised to
@Rs. 65 from May 1998 till 31st March 2001
b) No change in the existing classification of the staff members and their
wage scale.
c) House Rent Allowance at 5% of the basic and DA and canteen
allowance @Rs. 1 day
d) Other statutory benefits and staff-members being eligible for over
time as per Model Standing Orders and Privilege and Casual leave from
1997 onwards.
e) Sick leave at the rate of 5 days for full pay and seven days paid holiday
a year.

15. Case 2
Disputing parties
Appellants : M/s. Koyaco Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Vs
Respondent: The workmen employed under them
Duration of case and the date and year of the case
 The duration of the case was 3 years and the final settlement of the case
was decided on 07.09.2000.
 Court: Industrial Court Mumbai

16. Brief facts of the case
1. The dispute in the particular case was whether the workmen allegedly terminated
could be reinstated to their original post by giving full back wages and continuity of
service.
2. Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar which representated the terminated workmen in the
particular case submitted that that the company terminated the services of the
workmen orally and without any due process of law. The workmen were not served
with any notice before the date of termination and also, they were not given any
wages in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation, any other monetary
compensation before or after the termination of their services. It was also submitted
that the workmen were earlier member of Engineering and General Employees Union
and the said union had also filed Complaint (ULP) No. 43 of 1995 in which the union
claimed the relief that the workmen couldn’t be terminated without the due process
of law.
3. The workmen constantly approached the Engineering and General Employees Union
for their reinstatement but as their demand and grievances were not considered by
the said union the workmen approached the Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar Union and
the workmen became the members of the union after resigning from the primary
membership of the Engineering and General Employees Union and the same fact was
brought to the notice of the company’s management

17. 4. On behalf of the company the representative character of the union was
disputed and it was submitted that the above said union was neither
operating in the company in the year 1995 when the dispute had arose nor
at present. It was therefore, submitted that the present union had no
representative character to take up the dispute on behalf of the workmen.
5. The company also submitted that the services of the workmen were not
terminated because of workmen forming a union and raising demands but
there was a voluntary abandonment of services on part of the workers.
The following issues were raised before the court:
i) Whether the reference was maintainable?
ii) Whether the services of workmen were illegally terminated?
iii) Whether the workmen were entitled for reinstatement and
continuity of service?
iv) What order and what relief could be passed for the workmen?

18. Court’s observation
1. On the point whether the reference was maintainable or not the
court observed that in the previous Complaint (ULP) No. 43 of 1995,
the previous union claimed the relief that during the pendency of
the complaint, the company should be restrained from terminating
the services of the workmen, without following due process of law
and also restrained from shifting the machinery and from disposing
of the premises and also it should be restrained from getting the
work done from the outside parties. The court emphasized on the
fact that in the present reference, the relief claimed was in respect
of reinstatement and back wages. Thus, the reliefs claimed in
Complaint (ULP) No. 43 of 1995 and in the present reference were
different and hence the current reference was maintainable

19. 2. The Court observed that workmen were illegally terminated. The
court emphasized on the fact that the previous union i.e.
Engineering and General Employees union had filed complaint (ULP)
No. 43 of 1995 in this Court and the Court ordered restraining the
employer from terminating the services of the concerned workmen
without following due process of law but inspite of the said order,
the employer terminated the services of the workers. There was no
departmental enquiry held while terminating their services. The
Court observed that the company committed fault by not
conducting the enquiry in respect of abandonment of the service
which was alleged by the company and under these circumstances,
the Court came to a conclusion that the workers were illegally
terminated by the company and it was not a valid termination.

20. 3. On the issue of reinstatement of the workmen it was argued on
behalf of the company that the company had closed its operations
and a closure notice declaring the closure of the company was also
issued. The Court observed that the relief of reinstatement could not
be granted in case of closure of the industry because granting the
same would be directing the employer to reopen the industry and
hence held that reinstatement couldn’t be granted. The Court
however held that the workmen would be entitled to 20% back
wages of their last drawn salary and directed the employer to pay
legal dues of the said 11 workers on account of closure of the
company except one.