The Law and case laws on disciplinary

procedure
(Field study, interviews with HR/IR Managers/trade Union Leaders)

SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE ERIRLH1512

Submitted by:
Manas Tiwari
Manish Kumar Tiwary
Md. Sheeraz Ahmed
Neeraj Singh Chauhan
Prathamesh Dashpute
Rakesh Roshan
Shilpa

H15150
H15151
H15152
H15155
H15160
H15164
H15172

Acknowledgement
This project could not have been completed without the support and guidance of some people,
whom we would like acknowledge before moving further.
First of all, Prof. K R Shyam Sundar, for providing us with this opportunity in the first place,
and then being the first and foremost source of our knowledge and encouragement about the
field of Employment Relations Law, which we have been exposed to very recently.
Secondly, we express our gratitude to Mr Pramod Kumar, AGM (IR & GL), Tata Motors and
then the General Secretary of Telco Workers Union, who gave their valuable time for
answering our questionnaires despite their busy schedules and provided us with information
which forms the backbone of our study.
Last, but not the least, we thank all our friends, and well-wishers who helped us contact the
industry professionals, and to fetch information from them.
Thank you all!

1|Page

Contents
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 4
DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 ............... 4
LAWS AND PROCEDURES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE ............................................. 4
DISCIPLINARY LAWS, TRADE UNION ACT,1947 ................................................................................... 5
DISCIPLINARY LAWS, FACTORIES ACT, 1948 ....................................................................................... 5
DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER ID ACT,1947: .......................................................................................... 5
CASE LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES ......................................................................... 6
1.

S. Venkatesan vs. Union of India, 1999(2) SLJ CAT MAD 492 ..................................................... 6

2.

Bhagwan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner Sitapur, AIR 1962 All 232: 1962 (1) CrLJ 554 ........... 7

3.

A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India on 29 April, 1969 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970 SC 150 .......... 8

4.

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963 ............................................. 10

5.

Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013................................................... 11

6.

Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 .................................................. 12

FIELDWORK: TELCO WORKERS UNION JAMSHEDPUR .......................................................................... 13

Interview 1: 10th October, 2015 ........................................................................................................ 13
Interview 2 : 14th October, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 16
References: ........................................................................................................................................... 19

2|Page

Introduction
Disciplinary procedures play a very important part in the management of events that take place in an
industry, organization or the country in general. In this project of ours we have tried to focus our
attention on the basis of these disciplinary actions from a legal point of view vis--vis focussing on their
application by courts and tribunals. We have also tried to cite various case laws in order to develop a
better understanding of these laws.
With the proliferation of labour laws in our country, it is very important to have a clear understand of
these laws in order to take action within the realms of principle of natural justice. Thus, it is very
important to correctly interpret these laws or have a good knowledge of how the courts interpret the law
before any action is taken. If a clear enunciation of the laws isnt present then there are bound to be
serious consequences making it all the more important to have a clear understanding of these laws. We
have tried to offer the pertinent and case laws in a way that it offers a proper understanding and a very
objective view on the subject.
In order to further enhance our understanding of the practical understanding of the laws, we have also
garnered and furnished information regarding the existence, application and evolution of disciplinary
procedures in organizations. For this purpose we have chosen TATA MOTORS MANUFACTURING
DIVISION, JAMSHEDPUR as our model organization. We interacted with different officials there who
handle such issues and gained a fair idea of how they handle disciplinary cases in their organization.
Not only that, we also gained a fair amount of knowledge of how they evolve their disciplinary
procedures in accordance to the changes that occur in their standing orders. A fair amount of practical
examples were also cited in order to gain a better understanding.
The importance of keeping disciplinary procedures in accordance with the laws is of primary
importance. The employees also have a right to be informed of the procedures and it must be ensured
that processes are followed properly in every case. Disciplinary actions should go hand in hand with
labour laws and thus, it is important that various facets of these laws are taken into account which we
aim to do in our project.

3|Page

LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946
Section 3. Submission of draft standing orders
(2) Provision shall be made in such draft for every matter set out in the Schedule which may
be applicable to the industrial establishment, and where Model standing orders have been
prescribed shall be, so far as is practicable, in conformity with such model.
Schedule 9
9. Suspension or dismissal for misconduct, and acts or omissions which constitute
misconduct.

LAWS AND PROCEDURES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

Vishaka Guidelines against Sexual Harassment in the Workplace laid down by the
Honble Supreme Court
3. (b) The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and
discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for
appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
3. (c) As regards private employers, steps should be taken to include the aforesaid
prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946.
5. Disciplinary Action
Disciplinary Action Where such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined
by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated by the
employer in accordance with those rules.
Case Law: Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (JT 1997 (7) SC 384)

4|Page

DISCIPLINARY LAWS, TRADE UNION ACT,1947

Section 31
Failure to submit returns.
Section 32
Supplying false information regarding trade unions

DISCIPLINARY LAWS, FACTORIES ACT, 1948

Section 97
Offences by workers

DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER ID ACT, 1947:

Section 25T:
Prohibition of unfair labour practice.
Section 25U:
Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.
PENALTIES
Section 26.
Penalty for illegal strikes and lock-outs:Section 27.
Penalty for instigation
Section 28.
Penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs
Section 29.
Penalty for breach of settlement or award.
Section 30.
Penalty for disclosing confidential information

5|Page

CASE LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY

PROCEDURES
1. S. Venkatesan vs. Union of India, 1999(2) SLJ CAT MAD 492
This case is about whether disciplinary actions by a quasi-judicial body can be challenged. This law
is very important as it ensures tabs are kept on boards of quasi-judicial and disciplinary bodies to
ensure no misconduct on their part.
Case Details: Mr. Venkatesan (the applicant) was the Assistant Engineer working with Open Line
Organisation at the time of derailment of the wheels of Trivandrum Madras Mail in the year 1995.
Following an enquiry by the disciplinary committee, Mr Ventakesan was charged with taking
appropriate action against Mr Ramamurthy who served as the Inspector for tracks in the region.
Following procedures, Mr Venkatesan asked Mr Ramamurthy for his reply. After receiving and
considering his reply Mr Venkatesan handed out a very lenient punishment to Mr Ramamurthy
withholding his annual increment for a period of six months. When the General Manager of
Southern Railways heard about this punishment he issued a charge memo against Mr Venkatesan
citing his negligent handling of the case and for not awarding proper punishment to the guilty.
Further enquiry was ordered against Mr Venkatesan. However, Mr Venkatesan went ahead and
challenged contending that the powers that he had exercised in punishing the delinquent officer was
quasijudicial in nature and no proceeding can be taken for exercising quasi-judicial power. Hence
he wanted the memo quashed and the charges to be taken back.
Verdict : The tribunal agreed that a charge sheet can be filed against can be filed against a
disciplinary authority, even if its a quasi-judicial body, if it is established that proper proceedings
were not followed and the disciplinary body was negligent. The tribunal cited 2 verdicts given by
the Supreme Court, S. Govinda Menon vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 and Union of India vs. K.K.
Dhawan, 1993 where the courts had permitted proceedings against quasi-judicial bodies. Hence the
appeal of Mr Venkatesan was rejected.

6|Page

2. Bhagwan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner Sitapur, AIR 1962 All 232: 1962 (1) CrLJ
554
Disciplinary Proceedings versus Criminal Prosecution
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh was working as a clerk in the Collectorate, Sitapur. He was
suspected of gross negligence and delinquency of his duty. His management initiated a
departmental enquiry and proceedings against him. A criminal prosecution was also launched
against him against him in the Court of law along with the departmental proceedings under
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It was questioned by the Learned Counsel for the
applicant that some of the acts, which were the subject matter in the departmental enquiry, were
also taken into consideration in the criminal case as well. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ
petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus asking the departmental proceedings in-charge and
the Court of law to not:
1)

To hold the Departmental enquiry against him or

2)

To require him to submit an explanation

3)

To give any statement in the Departmental enquiry until the criminal case
against him terminated.

Verdict: There is no provision in the law that empowers the Court of law to stay departmental
proceedings just because the criminal prosecution of the same individual is going on in the
Court of law. The court also stated that the object of the two proceedings is also completely
different. The object of Departmental proceedings is to find out if the person should remain in
their employment or not. And the object of the criminal prosecution was to ascertain if any of
his actions were defined as offence as per the India Penal Code or not. The court also made it
clear that Article 20 (3) of the Indian constitution also did not apply to the departmental
enquiries because in the departmental proceedings a person is not tried for a criminal offense.
It is possible that he will be found of negligence and misconduct, which are not criminal offense
as such. In addition, during the departmental proceedings, there was no evidence that any steps
have been where the petitioner was asked to be witness against himself and to product any such
documents under his custody.

7|Page

3. A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India on 29 April, 1969 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970
SC 150
Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings
Case Details: The petitioner A.K. Kraipak and Ors. Etc were gazetted officers serving in the
forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were serving in variety of positions
such as Conservators of Forest, Divisional Forest Officers, and Assistant Conservators of
Forests. All the petitioners were aggrieved by the criteria, which was used for selection of the
officers serving in the Forest Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian
Forest Service, a service that came into existence in 1966 under Section 3(1) of the All India
Services Act, 1951 and rules framed under the Act. They moved their petition in the court to
ask for repeal of the notification No. 3/24/66-A-15(IV) issued by the Government of India on
the grounds that the selection in the notification discussed was in violation of the Article 14
and Article 16 of the Constitution and that selections were in violation of the principles of the
natural justice. They also challenged the power of the Section 3 of All India Services Act, Rule
4 that was framed as per the Act and Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service Regulation for the
purpose of initial recruitment, which was framed under the Rule 4. Section 3 provides that after
consulting the Government of the States including Government of Jammu and Kashmir the
Central Government will make rules for the regulation of recruitment and services condition
of the persons who are appointed in All India Services. Constitution of Special Selection Board
was provided by Regulation 3 of Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1956
framed under Rule 4(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The Regulation
5 governed preparation of the list of potential candidates. The head of the selection board was
Chief Conservator of the Forest of the State and final selection was to be done by the U.P.S.C.
The petitioners contended that one of the candidate, Naquishbunds was appointed as Chief
Conservator of Forest with no regards to seniority in the department. The petitioners filed
petitions to the higher authorities against their supersession. While their petition were still in
process, the same candidate was appointed as ex-officio Chairman of the selection board
constituted to recommend list of candidates for the selection in the All India Forest Service.
The names of the petitioner were not there in the list of potential candidates whereas
Naquishbunds name was there at the top of the list. Naquishbund was involved in the selection
board at the time when the case of petitioners was being evaluated for selection in the list of
potential candidates and when the order was preference was decided by the selection board.
Aggrieved The Gazetted Officers Association and the interested parties therefore moved a

8|Page

petition against the selection notified as violative of the Article 14 and Article 16 of Indian
Constitution and the selection were also against the principle of Natural Justice that before
taking any decision the other side must be heard and that No man shall be a judge in his own
cause.
Verdict: The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that selection based on the
recommended list by the selection board was in violation of the natural justice. Even though
the selection board was conferred with only administrative powers and not quasi-judicial but
there is still an common element between the two- which is the duty to act fairly and to make
secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. The court also observed that Naquishbund
has personal interest in keeping the petitioners (his rivals) out of the recommended list and that
he was not impartial, fair and just .The court also held that both principles of natural justice
was flouted. Based on this rationale the court struck down the selections made from the list
recommended by the selection board.

9|Page

4. State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963

The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge 01 a police station. One Mr. D,
suspected of having committed an offence, was apprehended by the village Munsif and was
sent to the police station. He was handed over to the respondent. The respondent declined to
give a written acknowledgment of having received 1) and made no entries in the station diary
regarding him. D was confined in the police station for several days without being produced
before a Magistrate. A departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible conduct
in wrongfully confining D. The defence set up by him was that D had never been handed over
to him because he had escaped while on his way to the police station. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry, found him guilty of the charge. The Deputy
Inspector-General of Police gave him a show-cause notice and after considering his explanation
ordered that he be dismissed from service. On appeal, the Inspector-General of Police modified
the order of dismissal and converted it into one for removal from service. The respondent filed
a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the order and the High Court
quashed the orders. The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders. The High
Court was wrong in its view that in a departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal trial
that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied the high court
could set aside the order of the departmental authority in exercise of its power .under Art. 226
of the constitution. The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the
authority holding a departmental enquiry: it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held
by a competent authority and according to the procedure prescribed and whether the rules of
natural justice have been observed. Where there is some evidence which the authority has
accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty,
it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. If the enquiry has been
properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before
the High Court. In the present case, the proceedings before the departmental authorities were
regular, no rules of natural justice were violated, the conclusions were borne out by the
evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity of examining his witnesses. Therefore, the
conclusions of the punishing authority were not open to be questioned before the High Court.

10 | P a g e

5. Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
The Case is about whether a Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring a private
complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
The Appellants herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the
Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012. The
complaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent with mala fide intention passed an
order dated 30.6.2012 in connivance with other officers and restored valuable land in favor of
a private person. On a complaint being raised, the first respondent vide order dated 6.10.2012
recalled the earlier order. Alleging that the offence which led to issuance of the order dated
30.6.2012 constituted ingredients contained under Section 406, 409, 420, 426, 463, 465, 468,
471, 474 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 149 IPC and Section 8, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d),
13(1)(e), 13(2) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a private complaint
was preferred under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On receipt of the complaint, the Special Judge passed
an order on 20.10.2012 which reads as follows:On going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, I am of the sincere

view that the matter requires to be referred for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly,
I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2: In view of my finding on point No.1 and for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER The complaint is referred to Deputy Superintendent of Police 3 Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for investigation and to report.
Brief Details: Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent herein approached the High
Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition Nos.13779-13780 of 2013. It was contended before
the High Court that since the appellant is a public servant, a complaint brought against him
without being accompanied by a valid sanction order could not have been entertained by the
Special Court on the allegations of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. It was submitted that even though the power to order investigation under Section 156(3)
11 | P a g e

can be exercised by a Magistrate or the Special Judge at pre- cognizance stage, yet, the
governmental sanction cannot be dispensed with. It was also contended that the requirement of
a sanction is the pre-requisite even to present a private complaint in respect of a public servant
concerning the alleged offence said to have been committed in discharge of his public duty.

6. Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36

The appellant, Parshotam Lal Dhingra, was appointed to the Indian Railway Service as a
Signaler (Telegraphist) in 1924 and was promoted to the post of Chief Controller in 1950, both
the posts being in class III Service. On July 2, 1951, he was appointed to officiate in class II
Service as Asst. Superintendent Railway Telegraphs. On certain adverse remarks made against
him in his Confidential Report for the year ending March 31, 1953, the General Manager on
June 21 1953, remarked as follows-"I am disappointed to read these reports. He should revert
as a subordinate till he makes good the short-coming noticed in this chance of his as an officer.
Portions underlined to be communicated to him." There upon the appellant made a
representation, but on (I) [1953] S.C.R. 730. 829 August 19, 1953, the General Manager
issued a notice as follows:-"Shri Bishambar Nath Chopra, Instructor Railway Training School,
Saharnpur, is transferred to Headquarters office and appointed to officiate in Class II service
as Assistant Signal

and

Tele-Communication Engineer (Telegraphs) vice Shri Parshotam

Lal Dhingra who on relief reverts to Class III T appointment." Against this order the appellant
moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The single judge who heard the
matter held that the order was invalid as the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution had
not admittedly been complied with. The Division Bench on appeal, however, set aside the order
of the Single judge and dismissed the appellants writ application. The question for decision
was whether the order of the General Manager amounted to a reduction in rank within the
meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and the appellant was entitled to a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the order.

12 | P a g e

FIELDWORK: TELCO WORKERS UNION

JAMSHEDPUR
Interview: management and union perspective on disciplinary procedures
Interview 1: 10th October, 2015
Interviewee: Mr. Promod Kumar, AGM - ER & GL, Tata Motors, Jamshedpur.
(Mr. Pramod Kumar, AGM ER & GL-Labour of Tata Motors Limited, has served in the IR department
of Tata Motors for over 25 years. He has recently been conferred with Compliance Champion Award
2015 in appreciation for his dedication and willingness to promote a culture of compliance in his
organization. He was also recognized as an outstanding compliance & ethics professional amongst 200
nominations on a National Level)
This interview is reported in a question answer format and the details reported and views expressed
are of the interviewee with which the interviewer has no affiliation or connection. Certain names have
been kept confidential in accordance with the conditions laid out for the interview.
Q: What are the various issues of disciplinary violations that you come across?
A: Over the years we have had a number of issues related to different facets of work. The broad
categories are -ethical issues and issues related to violation of code of conduct.
Q. Could you mention a violation belonging to each broad category?
A: An offence such as misrepresentation of prior qualification would pertain to the former while another
such as absenteeism from workplace would belong to the latter.
Q. Do you have a broad set of guidelines where the various violations are explicitly mentioned?
A: Yes, in fact we have 2 broad set of guidelines The TATA CODE of CONDUCT and the other
being the TATA MOTORS standing orders. We have 25 different guidelines in TATA CODE of which
16 are general and 9 are specific guidelines which relate to a specific work category.
Q. What takes precedence, the TATA CODE or the Standing orders?
A: The TATA CODE are the set of common guidelines that run across all the TATA Holding
companies. It tells you what is the right form of action in general context. For example- A TATA
employee is not supposed to accept or offer any gift, illegal payments etc. in context of the work done.
The Standing orders on the contrary are specific guideline belonging to a particular TATA Company.
There are specific rules for example coming late to work 4 days in a row can entail a disciplinary
action or show cause. So the two guidelines actually complement each other. The question of
precedence does not arise.
13 | P a g e

Q. What is the procedure for a disciplinary action against an employee?

A: We at TATA believe in an honest natural justice. So, if an employee is alleged guilty of a
wrongdoing, he is served with a show cause notice as to why an action should not be initiated against
him. In case he fails to give a satisfactory answer, a domestic enquiry is initiated against him and the
final course of action is decided by the disciplinary committee.
Q. How does the Union respond to it? Have there been instances where you have faced stiff
resistance on the part of the Union while conducting a disciplinary enquiry or delivering a
judgement?
A. At TATA MOTORS, we have a relationship of trust with the Union. In fact the last strike that took
place here was way back in 1969, so Union has relay worked in tandem with the management to make
it a better working place for workers and managers alike. We recently had to take disciplinary action
against an active union member and we made sure that justice was accordingly meted out.
Q. Could you please elaborate on the instance?
A. Recently TATA MOTORS Jamshedpur, facility has undergone a trade union election where the
existing committee members were subjected to a defeat. The core committee configuration has
significantly changed and we have a new general secretary, president among other key positions. The
subsequent events post-election led to a breakout between Mr. X (erstwhile committee member, TWU)
and Mr. Y, an existing committee member under the new union leadership. This resulted in a scuffle on
the shop floor which could easily have spread outside the factory precincts. We were swift to take action
as both were served a show cause notice the very next day. A domestic enquiry resulting from the
incident had penalised both, Mr. X and Mr. Y in equitable proportions. The union leaders, although new
to office, have taken cognizance of the management actions and played a role in maintaining an
environment of peace in the factory.
Q. Do you have a provision for revision in the standing orders according to the demand of time?
A. Yes our standing orders are subjected to major review every 5 years and minor review every other
year. In fact we have changed a few guidelines and issues a new standing order that will stand effective
for the next 5 years starting 2015.
Q. Any other instances of disciplinary violations that is worthwhile to the discussion that you may
like to mention?
A. There have been many instances that I have seen in my working tenure. A major incident was when
misappropriation of funds lead to suspension and eventual dismissal of 4 employees in 2014, this was
during the 15th August celebrations and the funds allocated to such purposes. A thing to notice here is
that, we at TATAs have minimum tolerance when it comes to ethical issues and in case of which the
14 | P a g e

enquiry may not remain domestic after all. It depends on the ethics counsellor to refer the enquiry to
the TATA Group Ethics committee. If such be the case, the local administration has minimum effect in
the procedures but still the worker is given ample opportunity to represent himself. We want to ensure
that matters are domestically settled and for that we also organize ethics camps and disciplinary sessions
for the awareness of workers regularly.
Q. Any other relevant point that you may like to mention?
A. The work culture has eventually changed over years. The worker these days is far more informed
and accountable. The number of cases of disciplinary dismissals, if not anything, have gone down in
numbers. Our workers today are responsible and educated, even the blue collared employee will have
a son who is doing engineering or MBA and he would know things. Thus we make sure we dont slam
arbitrary charges and that no one takes the workers for a ride. We follow the principles of natural justice
in our dealings keeping the TATA CODE in our mind at all times and this ensures that the Union also
supports us in our endeavours.
Q. Thank you for you valuable time sir.
A. Thank you, Best of luck for your Project

15 | P a g e

Interview 2: 14th October, 2015

Interviewee: Mr. Prakash Kumar, General Secretary, TELCO WORKERS UNION, Jamshedpur
(Mr. Prakash Kumar was elected as the General Secretary of Telco Workers Union (TWU), in the
general Union elections of 2015. He was chosen over Mr. Chandrabhan Prasad, The former general
secretary, in a closely contested election. He has been working in TATA MOTORS for 21 years)
This interview is reported in a question answer format and the details reported and views expressed
are of the interviewee with which the interviewer has no affiliation or connection
Q. Is TWU affiliated with any political party?
A. We as a trade union have always been apolitical. Members may have their political inclinations, but
that remains to be their personal choice. At the centre we are affiliated with INTUC (Indian National
Trade Union Congress).
Q. How is your relation with the management at TATA MOTORS?
A. We have an enduring atmosphere of peace and our relationship with the management is largely
cordial. Even through the recent elections, which was a result of a court ruling, the management
supported the union elections without any negative interference. Even the previous union leaders would
attest to this atmosphere of peace in our premises.
Q. Have union members been a subject of judicial litigation or disciplinary actions to your
knowledge?
A. There have been a few cases of rough exchanges between the current and the previous union
members off recently, but they have been resolved. Apart from that, there have not been many recent
cases of Union being involved in disciplinary actions or misconduct.
Q. Does the union subscribe to the TATA CODE and Standing Orders as enlisted by the
Management? Do you suggest any changes in it?
A. The union stands by the administration in their rightful application of the Codes. The Codes apply
to the blue and white collared employees alike. There is no distinction made between the two when it
comes to following the rules. Hence, there isnt much contention. The Standing orders have been revised
recently and we are yet to deliberate over it in the Union Office.
Q. In instances when the management choses to suspend a worker for misconduct, is the Union
apprised of the same? How important is the role of the union in such a case?
A. We have a committee member for every 50 union member at TWU. So in case of a disciplinary
action, the committee member is informed of it and the union eventually gets informed. If it is a case
of misconduct, we wait for disciplinary committee to conduct enquiry and announce an award. If the
16 | P a g e

union finds it unequitable or unjustified, we certainly will take up the case with the IR department. We
have regular meetings with the managers in IR and Personnel departments where issues are discussed
and mitigated.
Q. Do you make sure that union activities do not involve any misconduct on the part of workers?
A. We have a union office and we usually carry out our activities post work so as to not disturb the
workers on the shop floor. The management is notified and kept in loop of any meetings/deliberations
that take place. We make sure that union follows the Code of discipline to the best of our capability.
However, individual instances become hard to control at times. Especially when handling union
members who are young and full of vigour. But we make sure, that everything is done under supervision
of committee members who are accountable for their departments.
Q. How do you manage Union activities during work hours?
A. The general secretary, President (if not honorary) and treasurer are exempted from normal working
hours to carry out union work. Union meetings happen on holidays and after-work hours. We make sure
that our work does not come in between productivity, which is our prime focus in the plant premises.
Even the management is supportive in-case of impromptu meetings where union needs to involve a
particular worker in specific cases on contingency basis.
Q. Do you have a role to play in formulating guidelines for workers?
A. The management and union discussion at TATA MOTORS is ongoing. There are certain aspects
where the Unions involvement is imperative. E.g. those related to new safety guidelines, shift
rationalizations and non-compliance. However, the guidelines prescribed by the TATA CODE of
Conduct or the Ethics committee is non-negotiable and universal where management has the final say.
Q. What are the primary issues /cases of disciplinary actions faced by the workers?
A. The number of cases of disciplinary charges have reduced gradually over years. Gone are the days
when an over enthusiastic worker or union member would disrupt the work for petty reasons. We have
to remain competitive globally and the workers here understand it. Previously, there have been cases
related to workers not adhering to safety guidelines/ misrepresentation of age / or personal vendetta
escalating to scuffles. These have been dwindling in numbers over years. Even the union reprimands
its members against any such doing.
Q. Would you like to mention any other relevant information?
A. We are new to the office as you know. The previous union was ousted as a result of their incapacity
in handling the demands of workers. We have vowed to bring in Parivartan, a permanent change in
the ways we handle the matters related to workers. Ensuring compliance and making sure that the rights
of workers are represented regularly and addressed promptly is our prime aim. We would also make
17 | P a g e

sure that this leadership is tolerant and workers on sensitization of workers about the right and the
wrongs thus ensuring industrial peace.
Q. Thank You and congratulations on your victory.
A. Thank you. Best wishes.

18 | P a g e

References:
1)

Taxmens Labour Laws

2)

Labour and Industrial Laws, PK Padhi

3)

http://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/DisciplinaryProceedings/CaseLaws.aspx

4)

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/720171/

5)

http://kannanpersonal.com/projects/prosecution/index.html

6)

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/639803/

7)

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/a-k-kraipak-v-union-of-india1162-1.html

19 | P a g e