NEED OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020:
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, is an important legislative initiative that aims to streamline and consolidate India’s existing labour legislation. The code, which is part of the government’s labour legislation reforms, aims to solve numerous important concerns and bring about significant improvements in the industrial relations scene.
- To consolidate and simplify multiple labor laws related to industrial relations.
- To create more business-friendly environment.
- To provide flexibility to employers in terms of hiring and firing.
- Introducing thresholds for applicability of various provisions.
- Promoting quicker and more effective resolution of industrial disputes.
- Introduced provisions for enhanced social security measures.
- Recognizes nature of employment by gig and platform worker.
- To simplify compliance procedures.
GROUNDS FOR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES:
Employers and employees, two employees, and employers and employees might all be involved in a labour dispute. The article also specifies the conditions that must be met to classify a dispute as an industrial dispute.
- The mere difference of opinion will not constitute an industrial dispute instead of a factum of dispute will.
- The date of commencement of the dispute should be provided in writing by the union otherwise the same reference will be declared invalid.
It was in the case of The Union of Journalists V. The Hindu[1], where the court observed that for a dispute to be claimed under industrial dispute, the same should be existing or apprehending on the date that has been referred. Therefore, what the court meant by these observations is that if the demand by the employees were not brought before the management under which they work, and similar demands were raised during the time of the proceedings, the dispute will still be considered as an industrial dispute and proceed further with settlement mechanisms.
Similar kind of view was made by the court in the case of Shambu Nath Goyal V. Bank of Baroda & Ors.[2] also.
- The dispute should be such that it affects the well-being of the majority of workmen and not a single workman.
- The dispute that has arisen should be in relation with an individual workman or workmen in whom they being a body is or are interested in.
SETTLEMENT BY ACT:
To maintain a cordial relation between the employer and the employee, the Act lays down settlement mechanisms as well that can be of some help. The authorities on whom the Act confers authority to carry out settlement and investigation purposes for an industrial dispute are mentioned below:
- Conciliation officer under Section 4[3] of the Act,1947
- Works committee under Section 3[4] of the Act,1947
- Labour court under Section 7[5] of the Act,1947
- Boards of conciliation under Section 5[6] of the Act, 1947
- Labour Tribunal under Section 7A[7] of the Act, 1947
- National tribunal under Section 7B[8] of the Act, 1947
- Section 43[9] of this code says that an appropriate government can appoint the conciliation officers, for the settlement of the dispute between the employee and employers.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS:
Dispute resolution mechanisms in labour law play a crucial role in maintaining industrial peace and ensuring fair treatment for both employers and employees. Various mechanisms are in place to address and resolve industrial disputes in a timely and effective manner. This article gives a thorough examination of the numerous dispute resolution processes used in labour law to successfully navigate and address workplace conflicts.
Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining is a critical component in resolving industrial issues. It entails talks between representatives of employers and employees to establish agreements on employment terms and conditions. Both parties can discover common ground through this method, encouraging mutual understanding and preventing problems from worsening. Collective bargaining aims to prevent disputes by fostering open communication and mutual agreement on employment terms. It provides a platform for parties to discuss and resolve issues collectively.
Grievance Handling Mechanisms:
It is critical for organisations to establish effective internal grievance handling systems to avoid disputes from escalating. Providing channels for employees to express their concerns and establishing a fair and transparent grievance resolution process can greatly contribute to sustaining a healthy work environment. Effective grievance handling mechanisms contribute to preventing disputes by providing employees with avenues to address concerns within the organization. A fair and transparent process enhances trust and communication.
Works Committee
The Works Committee (WC) is mandated in industrial establishments with more than 100 workers to ensure good relations and preserve amity between the employer and employee. However, when examined, this provision demonstrates undue state meddling and arbitrary control. The creation of the WC is mandated, giving the ‘relevant government’ the authority to issue directives as needed. Furthermore, the plain language of the clause lacks explanation and circumstances for the WC’s constitution and instead grants the government unrestricted authority in both the constitution and the procedure for establishing the committee.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a more formalised method of resolving conflicts. An unbiased arbitrator or panel listens to both sides’ arguments and renders a binding verdict in this process. While less contentious than litigation, arbitration provides a formal framework for resolution and ensures a final and enforceable conclusion. Arbitration provides a more structured and less adversarial alternative to litigation. It ensures a final and enforceable resolution, often faster and more cost-effective than traditional court proceedings.
The Trade Unions and Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 1988 was brought in laying down restrictions on legal strikes by the employees. According to the bill, legal strikes can be carried out by the parties only after either of the parties has rejected the offer of arbitration that had been provided to the parties to settle the dispute. Although several efforts have been put to effect by the Indian government, voluntary arbitration still remains in shadows as have been reflected by the statistics.
Conciliation
Conciliation as a process has gained traction in the country with the establishment of alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, and the conciliation officer has been created in the IRC, replacing the conciliation board that existed under the previous system. When direct talks fail, conciliation becomes critical. Conciliation is the use of a neutral third party, usually a conciliator or mediator, to foster discussion and negotiation between opposing parties. This strategy attempts to bridge the gap and aid the parties in achieving a mutually beneficial agreement. Furthermore, it is shocking that the government failed to see an improvement in the existing landscape of conciliators, and data over the last decade reflects a significant reduction in conflict resolution through conciliation as well as unnecessary delays in the process.
Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR):
Mediation and bargaining, for example, are ADR strategies that provide flexible and consensual alternatives to dispute resolution. These strategies urge parties to actively participate in the resolution process and can be especially beneficial in less complex disputes requiring a rapid and amicable conclusion. ADR methods allow parties to actively participate in resolving disputes. Mediation, for example, involves a neutral third party facilitating communication and guiding the parties toward a mutually agreeable solution.
Legislative Interventions:
Labour laws frequently provide provisions for government participation in dispute resolution. When industrial disputes endanger the public interest or the economy, government organisations may intervene to mediate, conciliate, or even legislate a resolution. Legislative interventions may include the imposition of compulsory arbitration, the establishment of inquiry boards, or the enactment of laws aimed at resolving specific types of disputes.
Labour Courts & Industrial Tribunal
The industrial tribunal is involved in the ultimate stage of the dispute system. The current government makes no mention of a labour court. The tribunal is intended to have two types of benches: single benches and dual benches. The matters to be adjudicated are also enumerated in the provisions; however, rather than focusing on the details of the provisions, it is important to critically evaluate and analyse certain provisions, such as the referring of the matter to the third member in the event that a decision has not been able to achieve consensus, and such third member (judicial member) would be selected by the government. Labour courts provide a formal legal forum for the resolution of disputes. They interpret and apply labour laws, ensuring that decisions are based on legal principles and precedents.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS:
Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Anr.[10], The court stated that for every industry, it is necessary to support the harmonious building of the desires of both the employer and the employee in order for the industry and the work force to thrive and prosper in the long run. To accomplish this goal, the court stated that there is a need for compulsory adjudication for resolving industrial disputes through a venue where the parties can resort to arbitration to avoid any kind of conflict in the sector. The courts have frequently stated that, while an appropriate government has been given many authorities, he cannot abuse those powers in carrying out the procedure for resolving disputes.
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.[11], The Supreme Court of India emphasised the importance of the tribunals in dealing with the industrial dispute and instructed the government to seek advice from the tribunals themselves. Thus, the court separated the process for resolving disputes under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as a different entity entirely.
United Bleacher (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Industrial Tribunal & Ors.[12], The Madras High Court ruled that if the appropriate government takes too long to make a reference, it will not be a valid reason to deny the relief that is to be granted to the workers who are involved in the dispute and have already suffered from it. If the remedy is denied on this basis, the situation will be considered to as an unfair work practise and hence illegal. Thus, the preceding judgements demonstrate that, whatever the conflict, the courts always intend to settle it by providing justice to both parties involved in the dispute.
[1] 1963 AIR 318
[2] 1984 AIR 289
[3] Section 4 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[4] Section 3 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[5] Section 7 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[6] Section 5 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[7] Section 7A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[8] Section 7B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
[9] Section 43 of Industrial Relations Code, 2020
[10] AIR 1999 SC 525
[11] 1991 SCR (1) 468
[12] 1962 IILLJ 130 Mad
by – APARNA SINGH KSHATRIYA