The case of ‘Power Supply Corporation’ shows what are the various methods followed for dispute

settlement in an organization. In 1993, the management, together with the union, signed a 5 year
agreement in which various issues were settled. Regarding promotion, the agreement stated that
seniority of service will be considered as the main criteria for promotion, when other parameters are
equal.

Everything was fine till October 1995. The management went against what was stated in the agreement,
and promoted juniors and also recruited new hires. Many senior staffs were ignored for promotion.
When the management was questioned, it bluntly replied that promotion and recruitment were its
prerogatives.

Since there was no solution, the dispute had to be taken to the conciliation officer. Conciliation officer is
one who meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. He is appointed by
the government and his job is to lower tensions and improve communication between the parties,
interpret issues, explore potential solutions and reach a negotiated settlement. But he could not reach
to any settlement.

The biggest weakness of the union was that it was not affiliated to any central federation and also it did
not have outside connections. There was no one to guide or direct them.

In April 1996, the matter was taken to the Commissioner of Labor. The management and the union
agreed to abide whatever decision the commissioner took. The commissioner suggested that seniority
should be the main criteria for promotion and half of the vacancies should be reserved for employees
with prescribed qualifications. The management again did not abide by this decision and went a step
ahead by denying that it had ever agreed to abide by the decision of the commissioner.

Since there was no settlement till now, the whole process had to start from scratch and it again went to
the conciliation officer in March 1997. After continuous denial, the management did agree on the point
that 50% of the vacancies should be reserved, but there was still no agreement on the qualification
required for promotion.

The matter was then taken up by the government and referred to the Labor Court for adjudication. The
court took two and a half years to come out with the judgment. The long delay was because the court
was overburdened with pending cases and the management’s counsel was always busy with the High
Court. This shows the slow and weak judicial system of the country. The judgment, which came out in
October 2000, was ruled in favor of the union and again the management did not implement it. It filed a
petition in the High Court for the issue of a writ to quash the award. The hearing for the issue came up
after a year and even then no conclusion had been reached.

It was 6 years since the dispute started and there was no substantial improvement in the situation. The
union decided that it would be wise not to pursue further with its efforts and should try for a mutual
settlement. The litigation was disturbing its functioning and camaraderie. The union compromised and
finally reached a settlement in September 2001.
In the end, we can see that the management succeeded in stalling the implementation of the decisions
by various officials because it had more power as compared to the union. Also, the government could
have played a bigger role in helping the employees by taking action against the management since it did
not follow what it was told to.