METHODS OF SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Labour and Industrial Laws Project

By
MADHAV MITTAL Submitted to: Dr. Virender Negi
Roll. No: 53/16
B. A L.LB (Hons.) Section: A, Semester- IX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a many people especially Dr. Virender Negi for guiding me. I
would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have
been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers.
 Table of contents
List of cases….................................................................................................................................5.

List of Acts and abbreviations….......................................................................................................6

Chapter I:

1.1 Introduction…..........................................................................................................................7

Chapter II: Dispute settlement mechanism

2.1 Conciliation.................................................................................................................9
2.2 Adjudication...............................................................................................................11
2.3 Voluntary arbitration..................................................................................................13

Chapter III: Authorities under ID Act

3.1 Non-adjudicatory bodies..............................................................................................15

3.1.1 Works committee (sec.3)..........................................................................15
3.1.2 Conciliation officers (sec.4)......................................................................16
3.1.3 Board of conciliation (sec.5)....................................................................18
3.1.4 Courts of inquiry (sec.6)..........................................................................20
3.2 Adjudicatory authorities..............................................................................................20
3.2.1 Labour courts (sec.7)................................................................................20
3.2.2 Industrial tribunals and National Tribunals (sec.7A and sec.7B).............22

Chapter IV:

5.1 Conclusion....................................................................................................................29

5.2 Recommendations/suggestions......................................................................................29

5.3 Bibliography.................................................................................................................30
 List of cases

 Aftab-e-jadid,Urdu Daily Newspapers v. Bhopal Shramjivi Patrakar Sangh, (1985) 1

LLJ 272
 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Rajappa, (1978) I LLJ 349 (SC)
 Bata shoe co. Ltd v. Ganguli, AIR 1961 SC 1158
 Burn & co. v. employees, (1957) 1 LLJ 226 (SC)
 Cochin state power light corporation ltd v. its workmen, (1964) 2 LLJ 100 (SC)

 Delhi cloth general mills v. their workmen, (1967) II LLJ 523 (SC)
 Dhanalakshmi v. Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, (1999) LLR 278
 Glaxo laboratories Ltd. v. Labour court, Guntur, 1977 Lab IC 1523 AP
 Graphite India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Lab IC 1279 (Cal)
 Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 1 LLJ 137
 Haryana state co-operative land development Bank v. Neelam, (2005) 1 LLJ 1153 (SC)
 Indian general navigation railway co, v. workmen, (1960) 1 LLJ 13 (SC)

 ITC Ltd. workers’ welfare association v. mgmt of ITC ltd, (2000) 1 SCC 371
 Jaypore sugar co. Ltd, v. their employees, (1995) 2 LLJ 444 (LAT)
 Juggat pharma (P) Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of labour, Madras, (1982) 2 LLJ 71
 Karnal leather Karamchari Sangathan v. Liberty Footwear Co., (1989) 2 LLJ 550 (SC).
 Kathayee cotton mills Ltd. v. District Labour Officer, (1988) 1 LLJ 417
 Kemp & Company Ltd., v. their Workmen, (1955) II LLJ 481 Mad
 Landra Engineering and Foundary workers v. Punjab state, (1969) Lab IC 196
 Lipton Ltd v. Workmen, (1959) 1 LLJ 431 (SC)
 M/S. North Brook Jute Co. Ltd v. Their Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 879
 Management of KSRTC v. KSRTC staff and workers federation, (1999) 1 LLJ 489 (SC)
 Mineral Industrial Association v. Union of India, (1971) Lab IC 837
 Modern stores Cigarettes v. Krishnadas Shah, (1970) Lab IC 196,
 National Project Construction Corporation v. their workmen, (1960) Lab IC 907 (Patna)
 North Orissa Worker’s Union v. State of Orissa, (1971) LLJ 199 (Orissa)
 Oil India ltd. v. G.N.Borah and others, 1977 Lab IC 1610 (Cal)
 Punjab National bank v. workmen, AIR 1960 SC 160
 Pure drinks pvt ltd. v. Kirat singh, (1961) 2 LLJ 99
 Rohtas industries v. Rohtas industries Staff Union, AIR 1967 Pat 149
 Sindri cement factory union v. Dass, 1977 Lab IC 1801 (Pat)
 State of Bihar v. Kripa shanker Jaiswal, AIR 1961 SC 304
 Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 SC 832
 Virudhachalam P. v. Mgmt of Lotus mills, AIR 1998 SC 554
 Working Journalists, Hindu v. The Hindu, (1961) 1 LLJ 282 (Mad).
 Workmen of Buckingham and carnatic mills v. State of Tamilnadu, (1982) 2 LLJ 90
 Workmen of Dahingeapara tea estate v. Dahingeapara tea estate, AIR 1958 SC 1026
 Workmen of industry colliery v. its colliery, (1953) 1 LLJ 190 (SC)

List of Acts and abbreviations

 AIR-All India Report

 Cal- Calcutta
 CPC-Civil Procedure Code
 Cr.P.C-Criminal Procedure Code
 ID (Central) Rules-Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,1957
 ID Act-Industrial Disputes Act,1947
 IPC-Indian Penal Code
 LLJ-Labour Law Journal
 Mad-Madras
 Pat-Patna
 SCC-Supreme Court Cases
 SC-Supreme Court
 Sec.-section
 Chapter I:

1.1 Introduction

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

-Karl Marx

Though the concept of labour was prevalent in India since 2250 B.C. from the code of Hamurabi,
its importance is realized only after the industrial revolution and the rise of communism. There
arouse a situation to protect the rights of the labour against the dominant employer community.
When such a realization has spread among the workers’ community, several disputes started
arising between the management and labour giving way to new legislations. One of such
legislations is Industrial Disputes Act,1947 with the aim of settling the industrial disputes in
peaceful and harmonious way which proceeded from Rule 81-A of Defence of India Rules,1939.
The Act provides for the establishment of several authorities under Chapter III for the purpose of
settling industrial disputes and Chapter IV deals with the power and duties of such authorities.
The authorities have been divided into adjudicatory and non-adjudicatory bodies for the purpose
of understanding and their mechanism is also explained in this project.

1.2 What is an industrial dispute?

According to Section 2A: Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise
terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman
and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other work men nor
any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

Industrial Disputes have adverse effects on industrial production, efficiency, costs, quality, human
satisfaction, discipline, technological and economic progress and finally on the welfare of the
society. A discontent labour force, nursing in its heart mute grievances and resentments, cannot be
efficient and will not possess a high degree of industrial morale. Hence, the Industrial Dispute Act
of 1947, was passed as a preventive and curative measure.
1.3 Object of the Act

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is, therefore, the matrix, the charter, as it were, to the industrial
law. The Act and other analogous State statutes provide the machinery for regulating the rights of
the employers and employees for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in peaceful and
harmonious atmosphere by providing scope for collective bargaining by negotiations and mediation
and, failing that, by voluntary arbitration or compulsory adjudication by the authorities created
under these statutes with the active participation of the trade unions. With the aid of this
machinery, industrial law covers a comprehensive canvas of state intervention of social control
through law to protect directly the claims of workers to wages, bonus, retiral benefits such as
gratuity, provident fund and pension, claims, social security measures such as workmen’s
compensation, insurance, maternity benefits, safety welfare and protection of minimum of
economic well-being. Job security has been particularly protected by providing industrial
adjudication of unfair discharges and dismissals and ensuring reinstatement of illegally discharged
or dismissed workmen. Protection has gone still further by laying down conditions of service in
specified industries and establishments and limiting the hours of work. By and large, all these
subjects are "connected with employment or non-employment or terms of employment or with the
conditions of labour" of industrial employees. In other words, these matters are the subject matter
of industrial disputes, which can be investigated and settled with the aid of the machinery provided
under the Act or analogous State statutes.
Chapter II: Dispute settlement mechanism:

2.1 Conciliation:

Conciliation is a process where the dispute between the employer and workmen are referred to a
third party and the third party helps them to come to an agreement. However he is not the
ultimate decision maker. He helps the disputants to come to a consensus. For the purpose of
conciliation only, the appropriate governments appoint conciliation officers and constitute board
of conciliation as mentioned above. This process has come out successful in many industrialized
countries. The success of the conciliation machinery in India can be accounted by statistics1.
However it has failed in some states too. The non-adjudicatory bodies follow the process of
conciliation.

The conciliation proceedings generally commence from the reference of the disputes by the
appropriate government. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, strikes and
lockouts are prohibited in public utility services and the exercise of management’s prerogative2.
A conciliation proceeding is deemed to have concluded,

 When the settlement is arrived and memorandum of settlement is signed by both the
parties
 When no settlement is arrived, then the report of the board is actually received by the
appropriate government3 and is published under sec.17
 When reference is made to a labour court, tribunal or national tribunal under sec.10

The settlement as defined by sec.2 (p) as that arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding
and includes a written agreement signed by the parties and a copy is sent to the officer authorized
by the appropriate government. ‘In the course of conciliation proceedings’ essentially requires
that the settlement is arrived during the conciliation proceedings are pending4. The settlement
must be in form 4 as mentioned under Rule 58 (i). The settlement must be fair, just and bonafide
and it should be published by the appropriate government under sec.17 (1). The settlement shall

1
See generally S.C.Srivastava, Industrial relations and labour laws, 275,276(6th Edition,2013), Vikas Publishing
house Pvt. Ltd, Noida.
2
See sec.22(1) (d) of ID Act. see also sec.22(2) (d) and 33 of ID Act
3
See Workmen of industry colliery v. its colliery, (1953) 1 LLJ 190 (SC)
4
See Bata shoe co. Ltd v. Ganguli, AIR 1961 SC 1158
come into force on the date in which the memorandum of settlement is signed and agreed by the
parties5 and it can be terminated by written intimation after the expiry of two months from the
date of the notice (where the notice is given after the expiry of 6 months after the memorandum
of settlement is signed by both the parties or any period prescribed thereof)6.

In Cochin State Power Light Corporation ltd v. its workmen8, the employer and employees
arrived at a settlement which was to remain in force till 30th September,1959. A charter of
demands was presented by the workers on 14th October,1959 by which they resolved to terminate
the settlement. It was contended that settlement was not terminated by the prescribed manner in
sec.19(2). Court held that the charter is sufficient notice under 19(2).

The settlement arrived by the agreement is binding only on the parties to the dispute whereas
settlement arrived in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding not only on the parties but
also

 On all the parties summoned to appear in the proceedings (summoned with proper
clause by board,arbitrator,courts and tribunals)
 party referred in cl.(a) and (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors and assignees
 party referred in cl.(a) and (b) is workmen or persons who were employed in or part of
the establishment and the persons subsequently employed in the establishment after the
date of the dispute.

5
See Sec.19 (1) of ID Act
6
See Sec.19(2) of ID Act
7
See (1964) 2 LLJ 100 (SC), See also management of KSRTC v. KSRTC staff and workers federation, (1999) 1 LLJ 489
(SC)
Thus sec.18(3) of ID Act differs from contract law and lead us towards theory of collective
bargaining where the settlement reached by the representative binds the workmen beyond him
not only the existing workmen but also the future workmen9.

ITC Ltd. workers’ welfare association v. mgmt of ITC ltd.10, decides five important issues
connected with the settlement arrived at the course of conciliation proceedings. The court
decided that

i) the industrial tribunal cannot ignore the settlement unless it is found contrary to the
mandatory provisions of the Act
ii) the settlement binds on all the workmen despite of any objections
iii) the settlement is presumed to have arrived by just and fair manner
iv) the settlement should be given more weightage with regard to collective bargaining
and settlement cannot be ignores unless it is unfair, unjust and malafide
v) the settlement is not liable to be tested on the touchstone of Art.14

2.2 Adjudication:

Adjudication means a mandatory settlement of Industrial Disputes by labour courts, Industrial

Tribunals or National Tribunals under the Act or by any other corresponding authorities under
the analogous state statutes. The ultimate remedy of unsettled dispute is by way of reference by
the appropriate government to the adjudicatory machinery for adjudication11. The adjudicatory
authority resolves the Industrial Dispute referred to it by passing an award, which is binding on
the parties to such reference. There is no provision for appeal against such awards and the same
can only be challenged by way of writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
before the concerned High Court or before the Supreme Court by way of appeal under special
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which have superintending jurisdiction
also12.

9
See Virudhachalam P. v. Mgmt of Lotus mills, AIR 1998 SC 554
10
See (2000) 1 SCC 371
11
See generally Lalit Bhasin, India: Labour And Employment Laws Of India, mondaq,
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/50440/employee+rights+labour+relations/Labour+And+Employment+Laws+Of+I
ndia (last visited Sep.30,2015, (N.T.M.))
12
ibid
Its main aim is to promote industrial peace. There are three adjudicatory bodies in India as
mentioned earlier: Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals. Disputes are
generally referred by the appropriate government on the recommendation of conciliation officers.
The appeals from the conciliation authorities are generally dealt by these bodies. The system of
adjudication is made compulsory as trade unions are weak in India. It provides for settling
disputes related to wages, working hours, holidays, safe conditions of working etc., the general
principles of labour adjudication are as follows:

i) The adjudicatory bodies cannot go beyond the scope of the matter referred13
ii) The findings must be based only on the relevant and material facts proved in the case14
iii) A tribunal cannot avoid or relinquish the jurisdiction15
iv) Tribunals are not bound to adjudicate upon when the workers give up their demand as
held in Glaxo laboratories Ltd. v. Labour court, Guntur16.
v) The government has no power to take away the jurisdiction of the labour courts during
the pendency of the proceedings as held under Sindri cement factory union v. Dass17.
vi) The rules of res judicata and estoppel need not necessarily be applied to industrial
adjudication as held in Indian general navigation railway co, v. workmen18.
vii) The tribunals and labour courts have some implied powers under sec.11 A (inserted by
1971 amendment). They can deal with the industrial disputes regarding the dismissal or
discharge of workman provided that they rely on the material records and not beyond
that.
viii) The rules of natural justice should be strictly followed19.

13
See Delhi cloth general mills v. their workmen, (1967) II LLJ 523 (SC)
14
see Workmen of Dahingeapara tea estate v. Dahingeapara tea estate, AIR 1958 SC 1026
15
See Oil India ltd. v. G.N.Borah and others, 1977 Lab IC 1610 (Cal)
16
See 1977 Lab IC 1523 AP
17
See 1977 Lab IC 1801 (Pat)
18
See (1960) 1 LLJ 13 (SC) Compare…with… Burn & co. v. employees, (1957) 1 LLJ 226 (SC)
19
See Punjab National bank v. workmen, AIR 1960 SC 160
Adjudication means a mandatory settlement of Industrial Disputes by labour courts, Industrial
Tribunals or National Tribunals under the Act or by any other corresponding authorities under the
analogous state statutes. By and large, the ultimate remedy of unsettled dispute is by way of
reference by the appropriate government to the adjudicatory machinery for adjudication. The
adjudicatory authority resolves the Industrial Dispute referred to it by passing an award, which is
binding on the parties to such reference. There is no provision for appeal against such awards and
the same can only be challenged by way of writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India before the concerned High Court or before the Supreme Court by way of appeal under special
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

However, before the provisions of the Act, 1947 may become applicable certain pre-requisite
conditions must exist.

1. The dispute must relate to an ‘Industry’.

2. Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act gives a comprehensive definition of ‘industry’. The
definition of industry in this clause is both exhaustive and inclusive and is quite comprehensive in
its scope. It is in two parts, the first part says that ‘it means any business, trade, undertaking,
manufacture or calling of employees and then goes on to say that it, includes any calling, services
employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation or workmen. Thus, one part of the
definition defines it from the standpoint of the employer: the other from the standpoint of the
employees.

This definition has undergone variegated judicial interpretation. In case of Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajagappa [(1978) 1 LLJ 349] a 7 judges bench of the Supreme Court
has given the widest possible meaning of the term ‘industry’ which virtually covers almost all
organized activities under the ambit of the term ‘industry’. After the decision of the Supreme Court
in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board case the question to be asked is not what is an
industry, but what is not an industry. Further, even after the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage
Board decision there is much left to be desired with the interpretation of industry and the need for
legislative reforms has been accentuated by all concerned. A very sensible and pragmatic definition
of the term ‘industry’ has been attempted in the Industrial Relations Bill of 1978. With the
dissolution of the Parliament in 1979 the Bill lapsed.

The definition has been amended by the Parliament in the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,
1982 with new definition of industry in Section 2(j). However the amendment has yet to be brought
into force. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive and practical definition of the ‘industry’.

3. Under this Act an Industrial Dispute can be raised only by ‘workman’ employed in an ‘industry’.
Section 2(s) of the Act defines ‘workman’, which means any person employed including an
apprentice, in any industry to do any skilled, unskilled, manual, clerical, supervisory or technical
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied. The definition
of workman under the Act also includes any person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of any dispute. However, it excludes inter alia
any person who has been employed mostly in managerial or administrative capacity or in
supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding 1600/- per month or exercises either by the nature
of the duty attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature. However, in this regard it is not the nomenclature or designation of the
employee but the actual nature of duties performed by him/her that will determine the status of
such employees. Furthermore, before an Industrial Dispute can be referred for adjudication, it is
necessary that their exists a relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the
management.

4. The dispute must be an ‘Industrial Dispute’. Section 2(k) of the Act defines ‘Industrial Dispute’
and only disputes covered under the definition can be referred for conciliation or adjudication
under the Act. The definition of ‘Industrial Dispute’ in section 2(k), can be divided into two parts
viz :

1. Dispute or difference
 between employer and employers
 Between Employer and workman
 Between Workman and workman
2. Subject matter of dispute.
 Connected with the employment or non-employment
 The terms of employment
 With the condition of labour.

2.3 Voluntary arbitration:

Arbitration is a process in which the conflicting parties agree to refer their dispute to a neutral
third party known as ‘Arbitrator’. Arbitration differs from conciliation in the sense that in
arbitration the arbitrator gives his judgment on a dispute while in conciliation, the conciliator
disputing parties to reach at a decision20. When negotiations fail, the parties opt for voluntary
arbitration. The decisions of the arbitrators are binding on the parties. This clause has been
inserted into the ID Act by 1956 amendment. Sec. 10A (1) authorizes the parties to make
reference to voluntary arbitrator. The conditions are:

 The industrial dispute must exist or be apprehended

 The agreement must be in writing

Sec.10A (2) (d) requires the arbitration agreement to be in Form C and Rule 7 of ID (Central)
Rules, 1957. However, it is enough that the requirements of that form are substantially complied
with and it need not be necessarily in the prescribed Form C as held in North Orissa Worker’s
Union v. State of Orissa21. The agreement should be signed by the parties. Non-compliance of
the signature of the parties poses the question of validity of the award.
Then such dispute may be referred to the labour courts. Substantial compliance with the rule that
‘the consent of the arbitrators is must’ is required. A copy of the arbitration agreement must be
sent to appropriate government under sec.10A (3). Non-submission of the copy would render the
award invalid.
The government within one month of the receipt of the copy must publish the same in the official
gazette.

The supreme court held in Karnal leather Karamchari Sangathan v. Liberty Footwear Co.22, that
the arbitration agreement must be published before an arbitrator considered the merits of the
disputes. Non-compliance of this requirement will be fatal to the arbitration award. Regarding
the time limit, Orissa High court23 held the time limit of one month should be mandatorily

20
See generally Admin, Difference Between Arbitration and Conciliation, Difference between.com,
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-arbitration-and-vs-conciliation/ (last visited oct.1,2015,
(N.T.M.))
21
See (1971) LLJ 199 (Orissa)
22
See (1989) 2 LLJ 550 (SC). See also Kathayee cotton mills Ltd. v. District Labour Officer, (1988) 1 LLJ 417
23

The voluntary arbitrator under ID Act is considered as a statutory arbitrator Rohtas industries v.
Rohtas industries Staff Union27. Arbitrator is a statutory tribunal and any error on the face of the
award is subject to review by the courts. An arbitrator should be impartial and must build
confidence among the parties. He or his relatives must not accept any favour from any parties to
the dispute which would amount to misconduct as held in National Project Construction
Corporation v. their workmen28. The arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide upon all the
industrial disputes referred to him under the agreement but he cannot decide matters which are
not referred to him by the parties. Though sec.11A did not specifically mention about the
arbitrator, he has the power to interfere with the punishment awarded by the management. It was
affirmed by Justice Krishna Iyer in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha29.

The arbitrators must sign the award and send it to the appropriate government. Where a reference
is made to even number of arbitrators, an umpire shall be appointed whose ‘award’ shall prevail.
Such awards can be supervised by the High Court under Art.227 and by the Supreme Court
under Art.136 as the 1964 amendment extended the application of ID Act.
Chapter III: Authorities under ID Act:

3.1 Non-adjudicatory bodies:

3.1.1 Works committee (sec.3):

In the case of an industrial establishment in which 100 or more workmen are employed on any
day in the preceding 12 months, the appropriate Government may require the employer to
constitute a 'Works Committee'. It consists of equal number of representatives of employers and
workmen engaged in an industry. The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen from
amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with the registered trade
union, if any (registered under Indian Trade Unions Act,1926). Works committee deals with the
workers problem arising day to day in the industrial establishment. They have been set up to
promote amity and good relations between the employer and workmen as given under sec.3(2) of
ID Act.

In Kemp & Company Ltd., v. their Workmen, that The Works Committees are normally
concerned with problems arising in the day to day working of the concern and the functions of
the Works Committees are to ascertain the grievances of the employees and when occasion arises
to arrive at some agreement also.

3.1.2 Conciliation officers (sec.4):

Sec.4 of ID Act, 1947, provides for the appropriate government to appoint such number of
persons as conciliation officers for settling the industrial disputes. These officers are appointed
for a specified area or for specified industries or for one or more specified industries30. Their
decisions are not binding on the parties.

30
See Sec.4(2) of ID Act
Section 12 prescribes the duties of Conciliation Officers as below:

 If the employer and the workmen fail to arrive at a settlement through negotiations, The
Conciliation Officer may intervene as a mediator, endeavour to reconcile the differences
of opinion.
 Intervention by the Conciliation Officer is mandatory in case where an Industrial Dispute
has arisen in a Public Utility Service and a notice of strike or lockout (Under Section 22)
has been served. Such date is taken as the date of commencement of the proceedings
under sec.20(1).
 The Conciliation Officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of dispute,
without delay, investigate the dispute and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the
purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute
under sec.12(2).
 The Conciliation Officer shall send a report of proceedings to the Government, as to
whether the settlement has been achieved or not, within fourteen days of
commencement of the conciliation proceedings. If a settlement is arrived at as a
result of Conciliation Proceedings a memorandum of settlement is worked out and
it becomes binding on all the parties concerned for a period agreed upon as under
sec.12(3). If no settlement is arrived at, the Conciliation Officer shall, as soon as
practicable after the close of Investigation, send a full report to the government,
including the reasons on account of which a settlement could not be reached.
3.1.3 Board of conciliation (sec.5):

Whenever there arises a dispute of complicated nature and requires special handling, the
appropriate government constitutes the board of conciliation under sec.5 of ID Act.The Board of
Conciliation is not a permanent institution like conciliation officer. It is an adhoc body
consisting of a chairman and two or four other members. The board:

 Can issue notices to the authorities and can handle ex-parte circumstances
 Can keep certain awards confidential
 Can accept admit, accept or call for evidences at any stage
 can conduct the proceedings in camera if required
 should allow the parties to have the right of examination and cross-examination
 should provide the expenses for witnesses as in civil court

The board has the duty to settle the disputes amicably without any delay as under sec.12(1). If
the settlement has been arrived, a report along with the memorandum of settlement signed by the
parties should be send to the appropriate government under sec.13(1). In case of failure of the
settlement, the board should send a full report to the government along with the recommendation
for the determination of the dispute under sec.13(3) and the government may refer it to the
labour court or tribunals.

The differences between the conciliation officer and the board of conciliation are:

 the former is permanent government machinery of administrative nature and the latter is
ad-hoc and judicial in nature
 former can intervene in the disputes without any reference by the government but
latter can interfere only when it is referred by the appropriate government
3.1.4 Court of inquiry (sec.6):

The concept is borrowed from the British Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The government may
constitute a court of inquiry under sec.6(1) of ID Act for the purpose of ‘enquiring into any
matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the industrial dispute’ and submit a report to
the government on the basis of inquiry. Such an arrangement is made when the version or
contentions of the disputants differ, and the situation requires an investigation for the purpose of
finding out the truth. It consists of two or more independent members along with a chairman
under sec.6(2). The court has to inquire into matters referred to it by the appropriate government
and submit its report within 6 months from the commencement of the inquiry55. The report shall
be published within 30 days of its receipts.

3.2 Adjudicatory bodies:

3.2.1 Labour courts (sec.7):

The appropriate government under sec.7(1) may constitute one or more labour courts. It consists
of only one person to be appointed 56 as a presiding officer of the labour court by the appropriate
government who

 has been the judge of the High court or

 has been a district judge or additional district judge for a period of not less than 3 years or
 has held judicial office in India for not less than 7 years or
 has been the presiding officer of the labour court for not less than 5 years
 has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the
State Labour Department , having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience
in the labour department after having acquired degree in law including three years of
experience as Conciliation Officer57

55
See Sec.14 of ID Act.
56
See Sec.7(2) of ID Act.
57
Inserted by 2010 amendment
  is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the
grade58

under 7(3) of the Act. He shall continue in office provided he is an independent person59 and has
not attained the age of sixty-five years or else he will be disqualified under sec.7-C. the
jurisdiction of the court commences by the reference of the dispute to it by the appropriate
government under sec.10. Once the labour court is seized of its jurisdiction of the term of order
of reference made to it, it cannot be extended by the act of the parties60.

The labour court has to adjudicate upon industrial disputes specified in second schedule of the
act which includes,

 the propriety or legality of any order passed by an employer under Standing Orders
 the application of interpretation of Standing Orders
 Discharge or dismissal of workmen including re-instatement and such other reliefs
 Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege
 Illegality or of strikes or lockouts
 All matters other than those specified in third schedule

And perform such other functions assigned to it under ID Act which includes voluntary reference
sec.10(2), arbitration reference sec.10(A) (iii), approval of the action of discharge sec.33,
complaints by aggrieved employees sec.33A, application under sec.33-C (2) and reference of
awards and settlements under sec.36-A.

In Haryana state co-operative land development Bank v. Neelam61, where a typist appointed in
ad-hoc basis and terminated from her service after 17 months applied to labour court for relief
after 7 years from the termination. The labour court denied any relief to the typist and Supreme
Court upheld the decision stating that it is relevant to consider the time period. The appeals of the
labour courts generally lie to the High Court under Art.226/227.

58
ibid
59
See Sec.2(i) of ID Act, the concerned person should have no connection with the dispute referred.
60
See Working Journalists, Hindu v. The Hindu, (1961) 1 LLJ 282 (Mad).
61
See (2005) 1 LLJ 1153 (SC)
2.2.2 Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals (sec.7A and 7B):

The appropriate government may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals (sec.7A) and
National Industrial Tribunals (sec.7B) for the purpose of adjudication of the industrial disputes.
These sections are inserted by 1956 amendment. The Industrial tribunal consists of one person
who is or has been a judge of the High court or has been a District Judge or Additional District
Judge for a period not less than 3 years or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department , having a degree in law and at
least seven years' experience in the labour department after having acquired degree in law
including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer62 or is an officer of Indian Legal
Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade63 under sec.7A(3) and National
tribunal consists of a person who is or has been a judge of the High court under sec.7B(3). The
jurisdiction of the court commences from the reference of the dispute by the appropriate
government under sec.10(1) (d). The jurisdiction continues until it makes an award which is
enforceable. They have all the powers of a civil court and they may even appoint two assessors
to assist the proceedings64.

Previously, before 1956 amendment, the appeals from the labour courts lie to the state tribunal
and then to the tribunal at the centre which was governed by Industrial Disputes (Appellate
Tribunal) Act,1950. But after the incorporation of sec.7A and 7B, tribunals have not been given
any appellate jurisdiction under ID Act. The jurisdiction is confined only to the disputes that are
referred by the appropriate government. But exceptionally in some cases where the state
legislations allow for an appeal to the tribunal, it can be permitted. For instance, the appeal from
the Mumbai labour court goes to the Bombay industrial courts under sec.84 and 85 of the
Bombay Industrial relations Act,1946 and sec.42 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. But nevertheless in such cases,
appeals before both the tribunal and courts are valid and if the appeal is done to both of the

62
Inserted by 2010 amendment
63
ibid
64
See Sec.7A (4) of ID Act
courts simultaneously, then the court where it was appealed first should be given preference.
Similar provisions are present in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh also65.

Sec.15 of the Act requires the Labour courts and Tribunals to hold their proceedings
expeditiously and shall submit the award to the appropriate government within the prescribed
time in the order of reference or within the period mentioned in sec.10(2A). The procedure for
notices, summons, hearing, inspection are provided under Rules 9 to 30 of ID (Central)
Rules,1957 in which case the application of the code of civil procedure is relaxed to some extent.
And these adjudicatory bodies need not strictly follow the rule of evidence under Indian
Evidence Act68.

65
P.R.N.Sinha et al., Industrial Relations, Trade Unions, and Labour Legislation, 393 (4th Edition, 2015), Dorling
Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd., Delhi.
66
See (1959) 1 LLJ 431 (SC)
67
See generally Dr.H.K.Saharay, Labour and Industrial law, 154(6th Edition, 2015) Universal law publishing co., New
Delhi.
68
See Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 SC 832
Conclusion

“The courts of this country should not be the places where resolution of disputes begins. They
should be the places where the disputes end after alternative methods of resolving disputes have
been considered and tried.”

- Sandra Day O’Connor.

The Industrial Disputes Act,1947 emphasizes the need to address the industrial disputes and
settle them by peaceful means employing different methods of dispute settlement. In the arena of
increasing labour disputes, the Act seemingly protects the interests of the labour. The main idea
of providing two types of bodies- adjudicatory and non-adjudicatory is that the former can give
decisions which are binding on the parties and can be enforced in any court of law and the latter
cannot provide such binding and enforcing decisions. But still, we are lagging behind in the
industrial growth owing to the unsettled industrial disputes and ambiguous provisions of law.
The lack of adequate awareness among the working community can also be taken as one reason.
Hence the responsibility lies on the heads of the Judiciary to interpret the statutory provisions
properly without offending the objectives the Act and give out fair and just decisions; be it in the
favour of workmen or the employer.

5.1 Recommendations/suggestions:

1. Regarding the non-adjudicatory bodies, the presiding officers or conciliation officers

should be prescribed some qualifications so as to ensure qualitative settlements.
2. Regarding the adjudicatory bodies, existence of several bodies creates confusion among
the people as to which forum should be approached. The provisions also did not convey
the hierarchical form of courts established under this statute and the constitution. For
instance, regarding the jurisdiction within the state, we are not sure whether High Court
or the State Industrial Tribunal is higher authority or which one has the jurisdiction to
deal with the particular issue.
3. The concept of collective bargaining should be developed with limited state
intervention to evolve strong workers’ union and unity among the workers.
4. Trade unions must be recognized by the statutes (with the strict pre-requisites to be
followed) and should be given a proper status so that the presence of more number of
trade unions in an establishment can be controlled. And importantly, trade unions should
be free from the influence of political parties.
5. Every establishment should mandatorily have its own dispute settlement machinery as a
part of its activity which should spread the awareness of the legal provisions among the
working community.
6. The proposal of Second National commission on labour for establishing an Industrial
Relations Commission(IRC) at the centre and the state should be considered once again
and the features of such a body may be incorporated in the existing tribunals.
5.2 Bibliography:

Books referred:

 Dr.E.M.Rao, O.P.Malhotra’s The Law of Industrial Disputes, (7th Edition, 2015), Lexis
Nexis.
 Dr.H.K.Saharay, Labour and Industrial laws, (6th Edition, 2015) Universal law
publishing co., New Delhi.
 K.M.Pillai, Labour and Industrial Laws, (16th Edition,2015), Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad.
 P.M.Radhakrishnaiah, Industrial Disputes Act,1947, (7th Edition,2013), Asia law house,
Hyderabad.
 P.R.N.Sinha et al., Industrial Relations, Trade Unions, and Labour Legislation, (4th
Edition, 2015), Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd., Delhi.
 R. Ram Reddy, Industrial Relations in India: A Study of the Singareni Collieries, (1st
Edition, 1990), Mittal publications, New Delhi.
 S.C.Srivastava, Industrial relations and labour laws, (6th Edition,2013), Vikas Publishing
house Pvt. Ltd, Noida.
Websites referred:

 Deepak Miglani. Industrial disputes: How to be settled?, Legal services India,

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ind_dis.html (last visited Jan,02,2021)
 Lalit Bhasin, India: Labour And Employment Laws Of India, Mondaq,
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/50440/employee+rights+labour+relations/Labour+And+
Employment+Laws+Of+India (last visited Dec.30, 2020)
 M.J.Arputharaj & R.Gayatri, A critical analysis on efficacy of mechanism to
industrial disputes resolution in India, 2 International journal of current research and
academic review, 328-344, (2014).
 Smriti Chand, 3 methods for settlement of industrial disputes, Your Article Library,
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/industries/3-methods-for-settlement-of-industrial-
disputes/35436/ (last visited Dec.28,2020)
 Sunita balwani, Methods of Settling Industrial Disputes, Scribd. (2015)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/27371147/Methods-of-Settling-Industrial-Disputes.
 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, what is human resource.com, (2014),
http://www.whatishumanresource.com/the-industrial-disputes-act-1947
 Vikramlamhe, CONCILIATION MACHINERY, citehr,(2012)