SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND

POLICY REVIEW
VOL. 1 July 2016 ISS. 2

ARTICLES

REFORMING THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

SAMARTH CHADDHA

3rd Year LLB , Jindal Global Law School

32.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 176
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACT .................................................................. 177
CURRENT CHANGES AND DEBATE REGARDING REFORM ........................................ 180
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 AND POSSIBLE CHANGES ...... 182
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ............................................................................................ 185
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ........................................................................................ 186

INTRODUCTION

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (―ID Act‖ hereafter) is an ancient piece of

legislation that was primarily a ―law and order measure.‖1 Today, the Act is a key

piece of legislation for pre-empting industrial tensions and creating a climate of

industrial goodwill,2 however somewhere the provisions have gotten lost in an

environment of employers exploiting workers in the quest to maximize profit.

Industrial peace, as outlined in the First Five Year Plan,3 is an important component of

1
122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National Uniformity in Labour Adjudication,
December 1987.
2
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479
3
First Five Year Plan as cited in Ibid: ―Answer to class antagonism and world conflict will arrive soon
if we succeed in discovering a sound basis for human relations in industry. Economic progress is also
bound up with industrial peace.‖ in 122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National
Uniformity in Labour Adjudication, December 1987.
July 2016] SAJLPR 177

economic progress. Industrial peace is a pressing national need, and absent a law,

order would not be present and there would be chaos.4 The precursor to the Industrial

Disputes Act, Rule 81A of the Defence of India Rules, empowered the Government to

intervene in industrial disputes by prohibiting strikes and lock-outs, especially those

that did not arise out of a genuine trade dispute.5 The idea was that strikes and

lockouts were barbaric, and the state had to display its power such that it could

compel peace between employer and employee.6 Unfortunately though, the Act has

retained this same focus and time has come now to make some changes so that the

focus shifts from maintaining, ―law and order‖ to respecting the rights of the worker.

The basic notion of being a ―worker‖ has become synonymous with unions, and being

able to strike, which has lost its status as a right in a democratic society. This paper is

an attempt to look at some of the changes the Act needs to make, and the ones that

were made in the recent 2010 Amendment, to make suggestions to ensure that

workers are not, in a Marxist sense, alienated from their value of their labour.

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACT

The word ―peace‖ has been mentioned, though it has not been defined in the

current Act. It would be helpful to clearly explicate what is meant by the word peace,

by the lawmakers perhaps in the Scope and Objects to the legislation. It should be

defined such that peace is positive in nature and does not mean the silencing of

dissent, or even the ―slavish subjugation imposed upon weaker sections by the more

powerful dictating in their own terms.‖7 Just like the State of Gujarat has done,8 other

states could follow too and provide for the establishment of Joint Management

4
Ibid.
5
The Government of India in January 1942 by notification added Rule 81A of Defence of India Rules,
1939 to prohibit strikes, and lockouts. Subsequent amendments followed that only made the ban
against strikes tougher mentioned by Dr. H.K. Saharay, ―Textbook on Labour and Industrial Law,‖
Universal Publishing (2011).
6
H.B. Higgins, ―A New Province for Law and Order,‖ Melbourne: Govt. Printer (1921).
7
122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National Uniformity in Labour Adjudication,
December 1987.
8
Gujarat Amendment of Section 2 of XIV of 1947: ―Council‖ means a Joint Management Council for
any industrial establishment constituted under Section 3A.
178 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

Councils consisting of members who assist management in managing industrial

relations. As seen by Gujarat‘s own Section 3A,9 this would help build cordial

relations in what is a tense environment between employers and employees, and help

build an understanding of trust between them.10 This will have an impact on worker

productivity and management can get a better grasp of what are their

responsibilities.11 However, the Law Commission is of the opinion that such

provisions are a non-starter, and the Supreme Court has often stayed these sections

through injunctions12 – so not everyone is in agreement with every state amending

their local state laws.

A starting point for the ID Act would be to create a neutral body that aims at

bringing uniformity in awards throughout the country.13 Currently, what happens is

that the Supreme Court becomes a regular forum for appeal. 14 In the garb of important

questions of law, and a violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court‘s

jurisdiction is invoked which only adds up to the existing build-up of cases and

increases the pendency rate for adjudication of labour law matters. A neutral body

with a pan-India jurisdiction would not just lessen this build-up, but also provide

clarity to the workers‘ who may challenge awards regarding wages, only to find out

that they have a new set of wages to follow, whilst the earlier challenge is still being

litigated at the apex court. Because the Labour Appellate Tribunal was scrapped, all

the labour courts and Industrial Tribunals enjoy the status of giving awards that are

final, and which often conflict with each other, which can threaten industrial peace

and create disharmony due to lack of uniformity.15 Creating such a body would also

be in line with the International Labour Organizations‘ suggestion that has a workman

9
Section 3A of the Gujarat Act No.21 of 1972.
10
Section 3B of Gujarat Act No.21 of 1972.
11
Ibid.
12
122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National Uniformity in Labour Adjudication,
December 1987.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
July 2016] SAJLPR 179

who has his or her service terminated must have a right of appeal to a neutral body. 16

Providing quick disposal and adjudication of disputes through Industrial Relations

Commissions would reduce the potential for industrial unrest. It would also

decentralize the administration of justice and allow specialized lawyers with

knowledge of industrial relations, humanities, social science, planned economy,

targets of planning and socio-economic goals to bring their expertise to labour-law

matters.17 The Law Commission puts it poignantly: when we can have specialized

fora for taxation, patents, etc., then why not specialized lawyers who can ensure

industrial peace?18

The model for industrial adjudication needs to become more participatory,

especially in rural areas, where Lok Adalats could be of some use.19 Too often, judges

have applied the law in a very formalistic manner, or too objectively, not keeping in

mind the subjective factors that affect workmen when they are working. Many even

suffer from class bias, and need to realize historical perspectives whilst deciding

cases.20 The Act could forbid retired judges from being inducted in the Industrial and

Labour courts and tribunals, as they would continue to adjudicate matters in the same

way as civil litigation is done. Thus, they cannot see the unfairness of the matter at

16
Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1963 (No.119): Standards of General Application: A
worker who feels that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated should be entitled, unless the
matter has been satisfactorily determined through such procedures within the undertaking,
establishment or service, as may exist or be established consistent with this Recommendation, to
appeal, within a reasonable time, against that termination with the assistance, where the worker so
requests, of a person representing him to a body established under a collective agreement or to a neutral
body such as a court, an arbitrator, an arbitration committee or a similar body. Accessed 15 th April,
2016:
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID,P
12100_LANG_CODE:312457,en
17
122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National Uniformity in Labour Adjudication,
December 1987 – The Law Commission is interested in decentralization of administration of justice
with a view to reduce the burden on the High Court and the Supreme Court.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
180 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

hand from the viewpoint of a workman.21 The Act needs to re-emphasize through

amendments that the focus should be on uplifting workers from their current existence

to ―a tolerable existence.‖22 New norms of industrial relations would have to be

emphasized, and one way to do this would be to make it mandatory to have one judge

in the Industrial Relations Commission to be from the workmen itself, in order to

reduce the class bias.23 This judge could interact with one judge coming from the

employer and the other from a legally trained perspective in order to ensure the result

would be satisfactory.24 These commissions could have both original as well as

appellate jurisdiction and contain a mixture of both judges from the High Court as

well as the Supreme Court, as well as members of key unions and employees‘

organizations.25

CURRENT CHANGES AND DEBATE REGARDING REFORM

Currently, the Haryana State Government has made changes to its labour laws,

which includes changes to the ID Act such that firms with up to 300 workers can

retrench without permission from the government – as compared to the threshold

being 100 workers previously.26 Such changes have followed the Rajasthan state

government and are in line with the historical National Commission on Labour Report

in 2002 that had also made the same suggestion. The mentality of such changes is that

unionization is an evil that needs to be curbed, and this would be the ―bitter pill‖ for

the unions to swallow.27 This unfettered right to establishments to close down has

21
Ibid.
22
Report of the Labour Laws Review Committee, p.20, para 4.4 (1974).
23
122nd Law Commission of India Report on Forum For National Uniformity in Labour Adjudication,
December 1987
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
The Hindu, ―RSS-affiliated trade union opposes Haryana‘s labour law amendments,‖ Accessed 16 th
April, 2016: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/rssaffiliated-trade-union-opposes-
haryanas-labour-law-amendments/article8419249.ece
27
Frontline Article by T.K. Rajalakshmi, ―Loaded Against Labour‖ Accessed 15th April, 2016:
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1916/19160990.htm
July 2016] SAJLPR 181

attracted sharp criticism, and as Jagdish Khatter28 puts it, it protects jobs and not the

workers. It tilts the balance heavily in the favour of the employer and we need to

instead, strive for a balance between the interests of the workmen and the employer.29

What is worse is that the rise of contract labour has only ensured that we have created

classes between workers because the Commission‘s report suggests that contract

workers will not be a part of core activities of production.30 Even D Raja,31 agreed

with Khatters‘ suggestions and insists that reform must be pro-labour and should not

give absolute independence to hire-and-fire people. The counter-argument to such

changes is that we need to restore the flexibility back to the employers, because we

have lost out in manufacturing to countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. Sudha

Pillai,32 is of the opinion that it is the laws that need change, as many of them pre-date

independence and actually make it difficult for firms to fire workers. When

permission to retrench workers is seldom given, it denies the employers the flexibility

to change their workforce to adapt to market needs. Kaushik Basu, puts it aptly, most

of India‘s labour laws were designed with a ―scant respect for market conditions.‖33 If

anything seemed bad, there simply had to be a law striking it down. 34 The idea of

―reform‖ also needs to be clearly explicated by the Labour Ministry, as it has become

synonymous with ―right-wing reform.‖35 Pillai defends the Haryana and Rajasthan

amendments as a way to address and prevent the abuse of contract labour.36

28
Former Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Limited, in TV Debate called Macros with Mythili,
Debating Labour Market Reforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
29
Ibid.
30
Report of the Second National Commission on Labour (2002), Accessed 15 th April, 2016:
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1237548159/NLCII-report.pdf
31
D Raja, National Secretary, Congress Party of India, in TV Debate called Macros with Mythili,
Debating Labour Market Reforms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
32
Former Member Secretary, Planning Commission for the Government of India in TV Debate called
Macros with Mythili, Debating Labour Market Reforms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
33
Kaushik Basu, ―Why India‘s labour laws are a problem,‖ BBC Article Accessed 16 th April, 2016:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4984256.stm
34
Ibid.
35
TV Debate called Macros with Mythili, Debating Labour Market Reforms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
36
Ibid.
182 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

Perhaps all contract labour isn‘t bad, as it does give employers the flexibility

to change their workforce as per the demands of the industry, as to how volatile it gets

as per a particular time of the year e.g. seasonal industries such as textiles hiring

workers only for two months of the year. However, in the name of giving more

―flexibility‖ to employers, there is a decreasing focus on the needs of the worker. In

fact, the question to be asked, as D Raja does is, whether trade unions were consulted

by the Rajasthan and Haryana state legislatures before they proposed these laws?37

Khatter believes that distinctions should be avoided and we need to accept that

workers will be protected no matter what happens with a living wage. 38 Once we get

these, then we can amend the laws, he believes.39 However, the current Act does not

allow for free contracting because it prescribes in advance how and when workers

may or may not be retrenched – thus we do not see such contracts.40 It also acts as

disincentive for future hiring, because firms do not hire extra workers, for fear that

they will not be able to offload them easily.41Till the time any changes are not made,

perhaps the ID Act would be as Basu puts it, ―a good example of a well-meaning

policy that is founded on antiquated economics and a handsome misunderstanding of

the way markets function.‖42

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 AND POSSIBLE

CHANGES

The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 was passed on the 15th of

September, 2010 making certain changes to the qualifications required for being part

37
D Raja, National Secretary, Congress Party of India, in TV Debate called Macros with Mythili,
Debating Labour Market Reforms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
38
Former Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Limited, in TV Debate called Macros with Mythili,
Debating Labour Market Reforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6mp5_Ug8E
39
Ibid.
40
Kaushik Basu, ―Why India needs labour law reform,‖ BBC Article Accessed 16th April, 2016:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4103554.stm
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
July 2016] SAJLPR 183

of the tribunal, as well as mandating a grievance redressal machinery for every

industrial establishment employing more than twenty or more workmen. 43 Many of

the changes that were made stem from the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill,

2009. While the changes are laudable, there is room for some further changes to be

made in the future.

The first would be with respect to the grievance redressal machinery. The Act

prescribes that only establishments with over 20 workers would need to constitute this

committee. But, this threshold should be abandoned, as in smaller establishments,

employers would have an incentive to keep only 19 workers and not have to constitute

the committee. In fact, the smaller the setup is, the more likelihood there are of

grievances which need neutral mediation, as the proximity between the employer and

employee is quite high – where there would be room for everyday friction. In

addition, the Bill had suggested adequate representation for women, 44 but the Act puts

an element of discretion with the use of the word ―may‖ for increasing the number of

women-members. It says that if the number of members are more than two, the

number of women members ―may‖ be increased proportionately. This element of

discretion can be very harmful, since if there are 6 members, 4 could be men and only

2 could be women, and if one of the women is loyal to the organization, then a sexual

harassment or other wrongful termination issue could end up being judged in a very

biased way. This ―may‖ should be re-drafted to become a ―shall‖ where the committee

shall have equal members between men and women. If the Amendment says one

woman must be there if there are two members (keeping a 1:1 ratio),45 then that same

ratio should be kept throughout without an element of discretion.

43
Section 9C of Chapter IIB of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010.
44
Avinash Celestine, ―The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2009,‖ PRS Legislative Research,
Accessed 16th April, 2016: http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1237548159/Legislative%20Brief-
ID%20Amendment%202009-final.pdf
45
9C (4) of the Amendment: The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall
not exceed more than six: Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable, one woman member if the
Grievance Redressal Committee has two members and in case the number of members are more than
two, the number of women members may be increased proportionately.
184 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

Some critics of the changes, such as the President of the Indian National Trade

Union Congress (INTUC),46 believe that the country‘s industrial tribunals already

follow civil court procedure rules, and the delays are extraordinary. Instead of giving

the labour courts the same powers as civil courts, it would be better that the country

could establish fast-track criminal courts so that awards and fines can be enforced

immediately.47 Deepak Gupta, executive director of tax and regulatory services at

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, also believes that pushing everything to the labour courts

can be counter-productive.48 It is good to have alternative forums for disputes, but the

high pendency and vacancy levels in labour courts can defeat the government‘s plans

in expediting settlements.49 Many disputes are solved through the conciliation

process, and pushing everything to courts undermines that mechanism.

Also, if we look at the changes to make advocates eligible to man tribunals –

these impose a work experience requirement, of having spent seven years in the

labour department. This experience requirement unnecessarily raises the bar for

advocates and people who may be in and out of the workforce. Thus, it has a

disproportionate impact on female advocates who may be in and out of the workforce,

as well as people within academia. Who is to say, that a labour law professor cannot

be a useful member of the Tribunal, especially somebody who may have spent a PhD

studying Industrial Organizations or Labour Relations? Thus, these requirements of

mandatory time at the labour department should be removed, and made more

diversified, where one can be selected on the basis of a variety of work-experiences.

The Law Commission of India recommends that with adequate years of practice at the

Bar, in the ―relevant legal field,‖50 advocates can be eligible for appointment as

46
G Sanjeeva Reddy, President of the INTUC‘ in an article by Vikas Dhoot, ―New labour law to solve
workplace disputes faster,‖ The Economic Times, Accessed 15 th April, 2016:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-05-21/news/27604035_1_labour-law-labour-courts-
labour-disputes
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
50
Law Commission of India, Report Number 225, ―Amendment of Sections 7, 7A and 7B of Industrial
July 2016] SAJLPR 185

presiding officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. Therefore, we have to

widen the ambit of what is considered a ―relevant legal field‖ and make more people

eligible to man the tribunals.

THE RIGHT TO STRIKE

The Right to strike has been declared to be not a fundamental right. 51 It would

be helpful if the ID Act declared this a fundamental right, as in a democratic society,

this is a right earned by virtue of Article 19. This would also signal the beginning of

the era of giving respect to the worker for who they are and signal the move away

from trying to see strikes as something evil, and rather a part of a peaceful mode of

protest. The working class has ―earned the right to strike as an industrial action after a

long struggle,‖ such that the legislation recognizes it as an implied right. 52 Too often,

the mentality has been to neglect the worker‘s perspective and see strikes as

something to be contained, and controlled because of the loss of output they result in.

But, instead a strike is a measure of last resort for employees, who often resort to

them to challenge arbitrary changes in management policies, or wage structures that

affect their daily lives. Often, essential services (education, health, transport) are

affected, resulting in chaos and this increases the opposition for such strikes.53

But, it is important to remember that many a times all the worker has is his or

her labour, and not money or resources that they can decide to withdraw, thus he or

she chooses to withdraw the only thing they have. Whether a strike is declared, as

illegal or legal, workers are liable to lose wages for the period of the strike,54 thus it is

not in their interest to go on a strike. Also, strikes are permitted within Indian law, and

employers must understand the difference between a strike and a bandh, as it is the

bandh that is not permitted because of the ability to influence others. A strike,

Disputes Act, 1947 making Advocates Eligible to man Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals (2009).
51
Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Post Master General, Central Circle (1964) 7 SCR 403.
52
Bank of India v. T.S. Kelavala (1990) 4 SCC 744.
53
T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2003) 6 SCC
54
Bank of India v. T.S. Kelavala (1990) 4 SCC 744.
186 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

however can very easily slide into what is called as a bandh, and the provisions of the

ID Act should specify when and on the basis of what factors a strike could be

regarded as a bandh.55 Withdrawing the right to strike makes the assumption that

industrial action is always done in an unruly manner, which simply is not true all the

time.

A nation-wide strike was done in 2012 where groups of employees across

different banks, protested the fact that they wanted a greater share of the government‘s

capital in public sector banks, as the government was diluting its shares in favour of

the private sector and making changes in human resource policies56 that could lead to

a loss of jobs.57 Many taxi and auto-drivers wanted the costs of fuel to be reduced or

their minimum fares to be increased, and thus were engaged in a peaceful resistance

to ensure their needs were heard.58

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Simply making changes to the ID Act will not change the problem of

industrial tensions – but they could be a useful start in trying to respect the rights of

the worker, making more lawyers and professors eligible for tribunals, and not

allowing flexibility and contract labour to be an excuse for employers to retrench at

will. As per the CAG Report,59 currently conciliation proceedings are taking up to two

years whereas they are supposed to be completed within 2 weeks. The same report

also highlights how there is a need for greater monitoring provisions, as 40% of the

55
Argument put forward by Dr. Manusinghvi in the debate on NDTV, NDTV Video, ―Trade Unions
Strike: Is their cause justified?‖ Accessed 15th April, 2016: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/left-
right-centre/trade-unions-strike-is-their-cause-justified/225036
56
Anil Khandelwal, ―Human Resources: The Path for Reforms in PSB‘s,‖
http://www.livemint.com/Companies/j6LliwnSgsAElexscpDWLN/Human-Resources--The-path-for-
reforms-in-PSBs.html
57
NDTV Video, ―Trade Unions Strike: Is their cause justified?‖ Accessed 15 th April, 2016:
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/left-right-centre/trade-unions-strike-is-their-cause-justified/225036
58
Ibid.
59
CAG Report, ―Performance Audit Report on Implementation of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Report No. 15 of 2007.
July 2016] SAJLPR 187

awards are being published more than 6 months after they are received.60 Also, a

greater emphasis should be put on social security benefits for workers, with minimum

employment limits in the organized sector.61 As the report opined, any changes in the

law should be accompanied by a social security package in order to provide minimum

benefits to everyone.62

There is a huge preponderance of informal labour in India (93% upwards in the

informal sector) and our industrial sector is mainly low technology, whereas it should

have had a greater proportion of people who are vocationally trained. 63 Dr. Dipankar

Gupta, Director of the C-PACT group at the Shiv Nadar University, has criticized the

threshold-based approach of the ID Act, as he points out that size-based thresholds are

irrelevant for a country like India. Only 4.5 million workers out of 487 million

workers work in factories with more than 100 workers.64 Thus, keeping a Brahmanic

caste system wherein protection is greater as you go higher up the size hierarchy

makes little sense keeping in mind the way the Indian industry is structured. Another

more egregious threshold is that people who are working for less than a year (defined

as 240 days) are entitled to rights, but the rest are not given the same protection.65 The

entrepreneurs don‘t want to scale up their organizations because they would then have

to be bound by regulations, therefore, they try to keep their units small – and keep

flipping workers around before 240 days end.66 These thresholds do the most damage

to the understanding of labour -- and there is a need to get rid of them.67 Moving

forward, it would be important for policymakers to ensure that the ID Act does not

become a symbol for blanket approval to some of the long-standing demands of the

60
Ibid.
61
Report of the Second National Commission on Labour (2002), Accessed 15 th April, 2016:
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1237548159/NLCII-report.pdf
62
Ibid.
63
C-PACT Report on Labor Policy: Rethinking the Industrial Disputes Act: Labor Relations for a new
India: states that only 5% of India‘s workforce is vocationally trained, Accessed 15 th April, 2016:
http://www.thepoliticalindian.com/labor-relations-india/
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
188 ARTICLES [Vol.1 Iss.2

industry such as an open hire-and-fire policy, and give employers excess freedom in

making changes without adequate notice.68 A section should be introduced to make

worker‘s councils mandatory, with a secret ballot coupled with conciliation board

with an outside President such that interests of the workers are adequately represented

to the management.69 There will be conflicts, as they are unavoidable given that both

employers and employees have different stakes in question – however the Act needs

to emphasize that there is a common stake in the success of the enterprise.70 This

would be the best way to ensure that workers are not, in a Marxist sense, alienated

from the products of their labour.

68
V Shankar & S Kumaraswamy, ―Report of the Second National Commission on Labour: An Assault
on Working Class, as mentioned in Kumarjit Bannerjee & Bulbul Khaitan, ―Hire and Fire in 2nd
National Commission on Labor,‖ NUJS Law Review 1 NUJS L. Rev (2008).
69
C-PACT Report on Labor Policy: Rethinking the Industrial Disputes Act: Labor Relations for a new
India, Accessed 15th April, 2016: http://www.thepoliticalindian.com/labor-relations-india/
70
Ibid.