MIRLL CASE STUDIES

CASE 1
Indian General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. carries on a business of inland water
transport and maintain a huge number of wharves, jetties, godowns, etc., at different river
stations in India. One such set is at Dhubri in Assam, where many workmen are
employed. These men load and unload the Company’s vessels and help to transship
goods from railway wagons to vessels and vice versa. The company was a public utility
concern and the persons employed therein were "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. There were two unions of workmen in the establishment.

On 31.10.1986 both the unions gave a notice demanding 20 percent bonus and two
months average total wages as ex-gratia for the accounting year 1984-85. The Company
rejected the demand. Thereupon workmen resorted to various acts of indiscipline, go-
slow and persistent refusal to work overtime. As a result of which the Company
dismissed eight employees, after framing charges against them and after giving each an
opportunity to be heard.

On 15.11.986 both unions served strike notices on the company. The Conciliation Officer
interfered but no settlement was arrived at between the company and the Unions. He
accordingly sent a failure report to the appropriate government. In the meantime during
the tendency of conciliation before the Conciliation Officer a large number of workmen
went on strike on 26.11.1986. They forcibly entered the Company’s jetties and other
working places, and obstructed the work of loyal workmen. On 27.11.1986, the District
Magistrate issued an order under the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain law and
order. The Company declared a lockout in the same day. On 10.12.1986 the Unions
called off the strike. The Company lifted the lockout on 15.12.1986. The Company
dismissed those workmen whom it claimed to have obstructed the loyal workmen during
the strike. On 21.12.1986, 37 workmen were convicted for violation of the order of the
District Magistrate. On 22.12.1986 the Company dismissed them.

Questions:
a) Can the company legally dismiss workmen for adopting go-slow tactics? Of so, briefly
state the procedure.
b) Is the strike declared by the workmen on 26.11.1986 legal?
c) Are the workmen entitled to wages for the period of strike and lock-out.
d) Is the order of dismissal make by the Company on 22.12.1986, a day after the
conviction by the District Magistrate, legal.
e) What is the remedy open to workmen aggrieved by the order of dismissal by the
Company under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

CASE 2
The employees of ABC Company started resorting to work to rule, go slow and other
covert agitation methods because they (the employees) thought that the management had
unilaterally revised the prices of canteen items without consulting the canteen committee.
The management view was that since the recognizes union’s registration was cancelled
due to non-submission return; therefore the management was not obliged to consult the
employees. Consequently, the management also felt that the canteen constituted with the
nominees of the then recognized union ceased to be are preventative body. He
management entered into an MOU with another registered union. The management
constituted a canteen committee with the cooperation of the registered, but not
recognized union. During the strike there were some disturbances and an accident in
which an apprentice died. The management did not agree to pay compensation on the
plea that the deceased person was not an employee of the company. This led to further
unrest. The management applied to the appropriate government to allow them a lockout
on the pretext of threat to company’s property and personnel. In the meantime they also
insisted that unless employees sign a ‘good conduct’ certificate the workers will not be
allowed to enter the factory for work. A section of the workers were willing to sign but
the other refused to do so and dubbed the management as indulging in unfair labour
practices.

Questions:
a) Did the management resort to unfair labour Practices, Explain?
b) Is the management correct in creating the recognition as cancelled when the union’s
registration was cancelled due to some technical reasons and constituting another canteen
committee and holding discussions and signing MOU with another union?
c) Is this a case of strike or lock-out? Explain.
d) Is the management right in insisting on ‘good conduct’ certificate? Are the workers
right in protesting against their signing a ‘good conduct’ certificate as a prerequisite for
entering factory premises for work?

CASE 3
Mr. Nandkishore is a workman employed in the dispatch department of a cement factory.
The factory is located in one of the towns of a politically sensitive state. It employs about
1,500 employees besides the managerial staff. The annual turnover of the company is
around Rs. 150 crores and its capacity utilization if 75 per cent.

The factory has three unions besides a Security Staff Association and Management
Association. For eight years, only one union has been recognized, on the basis of its
"claim" that it has the largest following of workmen. Continued recognition of a single
union led to strained relations between the two recognized unions and the Management
and also among the unions themselves.

Mr. Nandkishore is an office bearer of one of the unrecognized unions. The industrial
relations situation on the factory has been fluctuating from periods of harmony to periods
of disturbances.

On December 10, 1988, Mr. Nandkishore dell down from the ladder, while working
during the second shift. This accident resulted in serious injury to his right arm. He was
admitted in a Government hospital for treatment. An accident report was sent to the
commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, to determine the amount of
compensation, if any, to be paid to Mr. Nandkishore for the loss of any earning capacity.
Meanwhile, the union in which he is an officer bearer requested the Management to pay a
sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance to the injured workman for covering medical expenses. It
also stated that the above amount may be deducted from the compensation which Mr.
Nandkishore may get, according to the Commissioner’s decision, after obtaining a
written undertaking from the union that this amount will be deducted from the
compensation payable. The union also agreed to this condition. It also arranged for the
release of Rs. 2,000 from the Labour Welfare Fund.

The Medical Officer treating the workman submitted a report in February 1989. The
Medical Report did not mention any kind of disablement (Full/Partial,
temporary/Permanent) to the workman. The Commissioner after processing the case and
styling the report, ruled tat the workman, Mr. Nandkishore shall be paid only half-
monthly wages for these two months against his request for compensation, as there was
no permanent on partial disablement.

On Receipt of this report from the Commissioner, the Management asked the workman to
repay Rs. 3,000 given as the advance and requested the union to do the needful in this
regard. The union, however, contended that since the accident occurred during and in the
course of employment, the Management must treat it as ex-gratia payment and payment
and that it should not demand its repayment as the money was used for treatment. The
Management, however, pointed out that at the time of taking advance, both the union and
workman had agreed that this amount will be recovered from the compensation payable
and since no compensation is payable, the workman should pay back the advance. The
Management, further pointed out that it cannot waive the to recovery of the above
advance as it is bound by the rules.

The union however insisted that Management should not proceed on the recovery of
advance from the workman. The Management also heard ruinous that the said union may
stage a ‘show down" over his issue.

Questions:
a) What is the problem in the case?
b) Analyze the causes, which led to the problem?
c) How should one deal with such a situation?
d) Discuss the Act under which this case can be dealt.

CASE 4
A clause of the Standing Orders of the Burn & Co, provide that "go slow" lactic on the
part of part of workmen will be treated as a serious misconduct for which management
Union which is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, but is not
recognised by the management, raises an industrial dispute demanding recognition of the
trade union and deletion of the clause treating go-slow as a serious misconduct from the
Standing Orders. The management rejects the demand stating that only 30 per cent of its
workmen are members of the union and go-slow is an anti-national activity. Thereafter
the workmen (unionist) adopt go-slow tactics under a common understanding. The
management gives notice to the workmen that if they do not resort to normal working at
full speed within 24 hours they would be dismissed and actually dismisses 25 of its
workmen (who are members of the union) on the next day, who according to the
management, do not resort, even after notice, to the normal working at full speed. The
remaining workmen go "on strike demanding reinstatement of the 25 dismissed
workmen. The appropriate Government refers all the disputes between Burn & Co. and
Burn & Co. Employees’ Union to an industrial tribunal for adjudication and prohibits the
continuance of the strike. Despite government’s prohibitory order these fifty workmen
continue to be on strike. Not only this but one day some of these striking workmen
become violent, assault the manager and damage the Company’s building and other
property. The management as a security measure declares temporary closure of the
company for an indefinite period.

On the basis of above facts-situation answer the following questions in the light of
relevant statutory provisions and judicial decisions.

Questions:
a) Can Burn & Co, raise an industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of 25 workmen who
are members of the union?
b) Does the dismissal of 25 workmen amount to an unfair labour practice?
c) Can Burn & Co. apply for modification of Standing Orders? Describe other methods, if
any, by which the union can get the Standing Orders modified.
d) Can go-slow tactics of workmen be regarded as a strike? Do industrial workmen have
a right to go-slow? If so. Can it be legally taken away by the Standing Orders?
e) Is strike after the issuance of prohibitory order issued by the Government legal?

CASE 5
Lakshmi Manufacturing Company is a registered factory employing 550 people. It
produces spare parts for cars and scooters. Ts security staff at the gate are vigilant and
regularly check people/vehicles going out of the factory to prevent theft of the company’s
material.

On June 18, 199, at 11 am, Rakesh a material chaser in the Services Department went to
the stores department to draw ten new GEC electric switches (15 amperes each) for some
urgent breakdown job, Thereafter, he came to the cooperative Credit Society office to
Enquiry about his loan application, At 11.30 am he suddenly remembered that he had to
purchase a post-card from the post office (situated outside the works gate). To write an
urgent letter and thereafter go to his department situated at a distance of about 1 lm from
the stores department. The distance between the stores department and the works gate is
about 50 meters, Rakesh works in the general shift, i.e., from 7 am to 11.30 am and 12.30
PM to 4 PM. The lunch brake is from 11.30 am to 12.30 PM. During the period, workers
are allowed to go out of the premises.
At 11.35 am, there was a telephone call to S M Kumar, Manager, Services Department
from the security Inspector, remand, that one Rakesh, T. No. 321 had been caught red-
handed at the gate by two guards Ramadhin and Trilochan, while trying to go out of the
factory premises with ten new GEC electric switches that were in a bag on his cycle.

In the preliminary enquiry, Rakesh confessed in writing that he was carrying switches by
mistake as he intended to come back to his department after buying a post-card. As per
the procedure for drawing materials in the Services Department on the basis of a written
instruction in the logbook from the foreman, the material chaser has to prepare the
material requisition after entering the details himself in the material requisition register.
After getting the requisition signed by the foreman and the departmental head, he has to
go to the Stores department to draw the material. If the material is heavy, he has to
arrange for transport, Rakesh carried small items like switches, fuses, etc., himself, to the
department. Thereafter, he is supposed to hand over the material to the foreman and
obtain his signature in the materials requisition register.

The logbook as well as the materials requisition register showed that Rakesh had
correctly entered the GEC electric switches therein.

As per the Standing Order No. 17 (iii) of the company’s certified orders, Theft, fraud of
dishonesty in connection with Company’s business or property, is a misconduct
warranting dismissal as per Standing order No. 18. The manager can issue a charge sheet
and also punish with dismissal any employee of his department, who is alleged to have
committed an act of misconduct.

Questions:
a) Advise the Manager, Services Department, on the steps required to be taken in the case
referring to relevant legal provisions under the concerned labour legislation.
b) Assuming that a charge sheet is to be issued, please draft one.
c) In case he denies that charge what will be your advice to the Services Manager?
d) In case the charges are proved, will you advise dismissal? Give reasons.