Industrial Tribunal

The Industrial Tribunal is an independent juridical tribunal on matters relating to

employment relations. It is regulated by the Employment and Industrial Relations Act
and has exclusive jurisdiction to consider and decide all cases of alleged unfair
dismissal, in addition to other cases associated with employment such as breach of the
law with regard to provisions such as overtime, parental and maternity leave.

Employment tribunals deal with claims brought against employers by

employees, typically relating to unfair and wrongful dismissals,
discrimination, equal pay, and deductions from wages. Following recent
reforms, employees must pay a fee to pursue a tribunal claim, and must
contact Acas at the outset to try to resolve the dispute through early
conciliation.

This factsheet examines the steps employees must take to start a claim and
what the employer needs to do to respond in a timely fashion. It looks at the
main facets of the formal tribunal hearing, including the types of hearing,
preparation needed, representatives involved, possible outcomes, and
procedures at the hearing. The factsheet concludes by looking at the
alternative of settling claims through conciliation or mediation (rather than
going to an employment tribunal), and describes the key features of
settlement agreements.

Introduction
The preamble of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947 states that the
purpose of the ID Act is to make provisions for the investigation and
settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes. i However
there was no provision for any adjudicatory mechanism in the Trade Disputes
Act, 1929, the precursor of the present Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Tribunals were for the first time created in 1947 as a dispute redrassal
mechanism by adjudication. The Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act in short),
1947 defines a Tribunal under section 2(r) which lays down that Tribunal
means an Industrial Tribunal constituted under section 7A and includes an
Industrial Tribunal constituted before the 10th day of March, 1957, under this
Act, the purpose of creating an industrial tribunal was to introduce
compulsory adjudication where voluntary negotiation fails and the
appropriate government believes that the matter is grave enough to be
referred to a tribunal.
However in order to work properly it was felt by the legislature to limit the
jurisdiction of such tribunal or courts. As a result two schedules were created,
the second scheduleii referred to matters within jurisdiction of labour courts
and the third schedule which referred to matters within the jurisdiction of
Industrial tribunal.
Section 10(1)(d) of the ID act further discusses the jurisdiction of
Industrial tribunals and provides that matters from third schedule of the ID
act can be refferred and in certain cases even matters from second schedule
can be referred to the tribunal. As the litigants in industrial cases are from
unequal bargaining powers, it was thought that the ID Act would level the
playing field. However industries took recourse to each minute legalities and
tried to evade jurisdiction of the tribunal. Hence it became of paramount
interest to the legislature and the judiciary to plug all holes in this welfare
legislation. In fact Section 10 is one of the most amended sections iii with the
largest number of state amendments. iv And thus over the years the
jurisdiction of tribunals have to be interpreted quite a number of times.
II
Structure of Industrial Tribunal
The appropriate government has been empowered by s 7A v of the ID Act to
constitute one or more industrial tribunals. The central government can
appoint tribunals in any state fro adjudication of industrial disputes in
relation to which it is appropriate government vi. A state government may
constitute one or more industrial tribunal in its territory for adjudicating the
matter in respect to which it is the appropriate government. The
appointment of the industrial tribunal has to be by notification in official
gazette.
The moment a notification is issued the establishment of industrial
tribunal is complete. The appointment of presiding officer though essential is
a separate matter. However the appropriate government can constitute a
tribunal and make an appointment of the presiding officer simultaneously vii.
Per the statute a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the
presiding officer of a Tribunal unless he is, or has been, a Judge of a High
Court; or he has, for a period of not less than three-years, been a District
Judge or an Additional District court, this issue was agitated in Paulose v
State of Keralaviii where the government had entrusted the work of selection
of presiding officers to advocate general, this mode of selection was
challenged. It was contended that the appointment has to be done by
advertising in a newspaper, however the court held that it is not necessary
that the state must in every case of public appointment issue an
advertisement or notice inviting applications for office.
Under the provisions of s 7A the appropriate government has ample
power of constituting an industrial tribunal for limited time intending thereby
that its life would automatically come to an end on the expiry of that time.
Again the appropriate government has wide discretion to appoint tribunals
for any limited time or for a particular case or for a particular area. When a
tribunal constituted for a limited period automatically comes to an end after
the expiry of that period the appropriate government can constitute another
tribunal and refer to it the disputes which were pending before the first
tribunalix.
Once the tribunal has been constituted and its appointment has been
duly notified along with the name of presiding officer who is appointed to it,
disputes may be referred to such tribunal by appropriate government under s
10 of the ID actx.
A tribunal once appointed cannot be abolished by an executive act merely
because the government chooses to put an end to it when a reference is
pending before it, for the state cannot do indirectly what is not expressly
permissible in the ID actxi.

III
Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal
The discretion of the appropriate government under S 10(1)(d) xii of ID act is
very wide.xiii To refer an industrial dispute or any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter
specified in the second schedulexiv or third schedulexv to a tribunal for
adjudication. The matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the
dispute in respect of which a reference is made, need not be related to any
mater specified in the second or third schedule.
The first proviso to S 10(1) however lays down that where the dispute
relate to a matter specified in the third schedule and is not likely to affect
more than 100 workmen, the appropriate government has the discretion to
make the reference to a labor court. Thus whereas questions arising out of
second schedule can be adjudicated both by tribunal as well as labour court
question arising from matters arising out of third schedule can be referred for
adjudication to a tribunal alone, unless the case falls under the first proviso
to s 10(1)(d) of the ID act.
The policy of the legislature while S 7 and 7A was to confer jurisdiction to
adjudicate disputes arising from the matters in the second schedule on the
labour court as well as the tribunal, while it wanted to give jurisdiction to the
tribunal alone on the disputes arising from the matter enumerated in the
third schedule. In other words, except for the matters enumerated in the
third schedule, the legislature wanted to confer jurisdiction upon both labour
court and tribunal. In case of an industrial dispute relating to matters other
than those specified in second or third schedule, the legislature included the
residuary item 6, in the second schedule under which both the labour court
as well as the tribunal will have jurisdiction to adjudicate xvi. Thus, there is a
marked distinction between the jurisdiction of the labour court and that of
the industrial tribunal. While the labour court functioning for all purposes
enumerated under the act, and certain duties and responsibilities as
prescribed therein the matters to be dealt which are within the jurisdiction of
the tribunal as prescribed under S 7A are entirely different.
From the language of the various clauses of subsection 1 of s 10 of ID Act,
it is clear that before the authorities mentioned in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of s
10(1) of the ID act can have jurisdiction upon any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to the dispute, such matter must be specifically
referred to such authorities. These words do non have the same meaning as
the words incidental thereto occurring in s 10(4). Unlike the matters
incidental to the dispute, the matters appearing to be connected with or
relevant to the dispute must be specifically referred to the authorities. For
the purposes of reference under clause (c) and (d) of s 10(1) of the ID act, it
is sufficient if it appears to the government that the matter connected with
or relevant to the dispute to any matter specified in second or third schedule.

IV

Power Of Labour Courts And

Tribunals
The law relating to labour and employment in India is primarily known under the broad
category of "Industrial Law". Industrial law in this country is of recent vintage and has
developed in respect to the vastly increased awakening of the workers of their rights,
particularly after the advent of Independence. Industrial relations embrace a complex of
relationships between the workers, employers and government, basically concerned with
the determination of the terms of employment and conditions of labour of the workers.

The original colonial legislation underwent substantial modifications in the post-colonial

era because independent India called for a clear partnership between labour and capital.
The Industrial Disputes Act [1] repealed the Trade Disputes Act 1929.

Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen was the first time that reference was
made to the power of the tribunal to interfere with the managements decision to dismiss,
discharge or terminate the services of a workman. In this particular case the Supreme
Court in its judgement while describing the nature of this particular power of the tribunal
said that this did not in fact confer a power to the tribunal to act as an appellate body and
pass its own judgement overruling the decision of the management but the tribunal shall
only be allowed to interfere when in fact there is a clear case of absence of good faith,
victimisation, unfair labour practice or in short only if mala fide can be shown on part of
the management

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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 and retirement
benefits such as gratuity, provident fund and pension, claims, social security measures
such as workmens 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

Under Sec 11A, the tribunals have been given the power to set aside the order of
discharge and dismissal of workers in whichever cases it thinks fit and the tribunals have
also been given the powers to in fact order direct reinstatement of the workers on such
terms and conditions that it thinks fit and if not that then to provide any other relief to the
workers. This relief may even consist of an award of a lesser punishment in stead of
discharge and dismissal, however the provisions clearly state that the decision in this
regard is strictly subjective and completely at the discretion of the tribunals on a case to
case basis. Hence it has been held that the provision was inserted in the act to in fact
confer power on the adjudicators to reappraise the evidence adduced in the domestic
enquiry and to grant proper relief to workmen, powers which the Tribunal did not possess
earlier,"

Although it is expressly provided that any workman aggrieved by the discharge or

dismissal or termination of his services may in fact appeal and the tribunal may
subsequently override the managements decision, there is however a limitation with
regards to the scope of the particular section as observed by the 2nd National
Commission on Labour: where a worker has been dismissed or removed from service
after a proper and fair enquiry on charges of violence, sabotage, theft or assault and if the
labour court comes to the conclusion that the grave charges have been proved then the
court will not have the power to order reinstatement of the delinquent worker.

Time limits for presenting employment tribunal claims

Time limits apply to all tribunal claims. The rules on time limits are contained in the Acts and Regulations relevant
to the particular type of claim brought. Failure to present a claim within the relevant time limit puts the claim outside
the tribunal's jurisdiction, which means that the tribunal cannot hear the claim unless there are grounds to grant an
extension to the normal time limit.

Time limits are usually three months from the date of the act or omission about which the complaint relates. Three
months is calculated on the basis that the date of the relevant event is the first day of the three-month period.
Therefore, if an act about which the complaint relates occurred on 1 January, the three month period in which the
claim must be presented ends on 31 March.

Tribunals will consider applications to extend time in accordance with the rules for the particular type of claim
presented. Extensions to the normal three month period are the exception rather than the norm. For some types of
claims, including unfair dismissal claims, a tribunal will hear a claim presented outside the normal three month time
limit test where it finds that it was 'not reasonably practicable' to present the claim in time and the extended period
within which the claims was presented was reasonable. For other claims, such as for discrimination under
the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal may hear claims presented outside the normal three month time limit where it
considers it 'just and equitable' to do so.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Time limits for presenting employment tribunal claims.

The early conciliation requirement

Acas conciliation involves an independent Acas conciliation officer (also known as a conciliator) discussing the
issues in dispute with both parties in order to help them reach a better understanding of each other's position. The
conciliation officer tries to encourage the parties in dispute to come to an agreement between themselves so as to
avoid the need for a tribunal hearing.

For further information on Acas conciliation generally, see our Practice Note: Acas conciliation.
The early conciliation (EC) requirement (also known as mandatory Acas early conciliation) is an obligation on a
prospective claimant to contact Acas with certain information prior to submitting a claim in the employment tribunal.

The EC requirement applies to 'relevant proceedings', ie:

1.

those proceedings listed in section 18(1) ETA 1996, which includes nearly all types of claims
within the tribunal's jurisdiction, and

2.

certain other types of claims, by reason of separate statutory amendments

For a list of claims that fall within the category of relevant proceedings, see the The early conciliation
requirement: relevant proceedings and extension of time limitschecklist.

In practical terms, the impact of the introduction of the early conciliation requirement is that in most cases, in order
to present a valid tribunal claim, a prospective claimant must:

1.

send Acas a completed early conciliation form including his and the prospective respondent's
name and address, or otherwise provide this information by telephone; this should be done
within the normal relevant limit to bring the claim otherwise any claim subsequently presented
in the employment tribunal will be out of time

2.

decide whether or not he wishes to enter into conciliatory discussions with the prospective
respondent:

1.

if both parties agree to take part in conciliatory discussions to try to settle the dispute,
Acas will facilitate this

2.

if one or other of the parties does not wish to take part in conciliatory discussions, or if
conciliation is not successful, Acas will issue an early conciliation certificate

3.

include the unique reference number from the early conciliation certificate on any claim form
subsequently submitted to the employment tribunal. If a prospective claimant should have
complied with the early conciliation requirement and submits a claim form without the early
 conciliation reference number, his claim will be rejected by the tribunal

4.

submit the claim to the employment tribunal within the statutory time limit; in most cases, the
time limit is amended by the early conciliation provisions, which effectively 'stop the clock'
running for limitation purposes during the conciliation period and, additionally, ensure that a
prospective claimant has at least one month between the conclusion of the early conciliation
and the deadline in which to submit a claim

For further information, see our Practice Note: The early conciliation requirement.

Calculating and altering time periods in employment tribunal

litigation
Separate to the statutory time limits for presenting a claim, the tribunal rules set out how time periods are to be
calculated for the purposes of carrying out steps in the litigation process or complying with orders.

The tribunal will often order the parties to do certain things, such as to provide further and better particulars of a
claim or response, by a calendar date. Unless there is specific provision as to the time the act is to be done by, the
required act may be done at any time before midnight that day.

Where an act is to be done within a specific number of days after a particular event, then the date of the event is
not included in the calculation, so an act to be done seven days after 1 February would have to be done by 8
February. Similarly, where an act is to be done in advance of a particular event then the date of the event is not
included, so a document to be served 7 days before 8 February would have to be served by 1 February.

The tribunal has a general power to extend or shorten any time period specified in the rules or in any decision of
the tribunal, on its own initiative or on the application of a party.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Calculating and altering time periods in employment
tribunal litigation.

Employment tribunal fees

The following fees apply in employment tribunal claims:

1.

an issue fee, paid when a claim (or employer's contract claim) is presented to an employment
tribunal

2.
 a hearing fee, paid on a specified notice accompanying the notification of the listing of a final
hearing of the claim

3.

an application fee, where a party makes certain applications (including an employer's contract
claim)

4.

a judicial mediation fee, where the parties agree to attend a judicial mediation to try to resolve
the dispute

The amount of the fee depends upon the type of claim and how many claimants are involved in the claim. Claims
can be presented and the issue fee paid online, by post (for claims in England and Wales only to the Employment
Tribunal Central Office for England and Wales and for claims in Scotland only to the Central Office for Scotland) or
by hand (only to certain 'designated tribunal offices' on certain days and during certain hours). Failure to pay the
issue fee or to apply for remission at the same time as presenting the claim will result in the claim being rejected.

The tribunal will notify a party of when and how to pay any of the other fees that fall due as part of the proceedings.
Failure to pay a hearing fee as set out in a notice, or to successfully apply for remission, will result in the claim
being dismissed.

Employment tribunals have the power to order that a party reimburse another party's tribunal fees where the claim
or application which was subject to the fee was decided in whole or in part in favour of the party who paid the fee.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Employment tribunal fees.

Remission of fees
A claimant or respondent (if he is an individual and does not have a solicitor acting for him under a certificate for
legal representation) may apply for remission of any employment tribunal fee that he would otherwise have to pay
(ie for the fee to be waived or reduced). An application must be made for remission at the time the fee would
otherwise become payable, and a separate application must be made for each fee in respect of which remission is
sought. An application for remission is made on form EX160. If a party does not apply and provide the relevant
documentation for fee remission by the time the fee becomes payable and, as a result, pays a fee in circumstances
where he would have been entitled to remission, he may provide the documentation within three months of paying
the fee and obtain a refund.

Full or partial remission of fees may be granted if the applicant's disposable capital and gross monthly income are
below certain amounts. The amounts depend upon whether the applicant is single or part of a couple, whether he
(or his partner) has children, and whether he (or is partner) is 61 years of age or older. The applicant's partner's
disposable capital and gross monthly income will normally be included in the assessment of the applicant's
disposable capital and gross monthly income. The HM Courts & Tribunals Service guidance and the EX160
application form suggest that the receipt of certain means-tested benefits will be sufficient evidence of the
applicant's gross monthly income to qualify for full remission where the disposable capital test has also been met.
Full or partial remission may also be granted by the Lord Chancellor where he is satisfied that there are exceptional
circumstances which justify doing so.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Remission of fees (for information on fee remission prior to 7
October 2013, see Remission of fees 29-7-13 to 6-10-13).

Submission of a claim
Claimants presenting claims to the employment tribunals must set out their claims in writing on the prescribed ET1
claim form. In certain circumstances, two or more claimants may make their claim on the same claim form. Claims
may also be brought against more than one respondent on the same claim form. The ET1 claim form should
include the details of the claim brought and must set out the following minimum information: each claimant's name
and address and each respondent's name and address.

Claims can be presented and the issue fee paid online, by post (for claims in England and Wales only to the
Employment Tribunal Central Office for England and Wales and for claims in Scotland only to the Central Office for
Scotland) or by hand (only to certain 'designated tribunal offices' on certain days and during certain hours).

A claim will be rejected if the claimant fails to use the prescribed ET1 form or to supply the minimum information.
An employment judge can also reject a claim, or parts of a claim, where it is outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or in a
form which cannot sensibly be responded to or an abuse of process. If a claim is rejected in these circumstances
the claimant may apply for reconsideration of that decision on the basis that the decision was wrong or the defect
that caused the rejection can be rectified. The claimant may request that the application is considered at a hearing.
Where the application concerns the rectification of a defect, if the application succeeds the claim will be treated as
presented at the date the defect was rectified rather than when it was originally presented. Issues may then arise
as to whether or not the rectified claim was presented within the relevant time limits and, if not, whether the normal
time limits should be extended.

A claim will be rejected if it is not accompanied either by a fee or by a remission application. If the claim is
accompanied by a remission application, the tribunal will await the outcome of that application and then, if full
remission is granted, the claim will be accepted. If the remission application is refused entirely or in part, the
claimant will be sent a fee notice. If the fee is paid by the specified date the claim will be accepted but if it is not
paid in time the claim will be rejected.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Submission of a claim.

Responding to a claim
If the claim is accepted it will be sent to the respondent with a response pack. The response must be on the
prescribed ET3 response form. The response form should set out the grounds of response and must include the
respondent's full name and address and whether the respondent wishes to resist any part of the claim. In certain
circumstances, two or more respondents may use the same ET3 response form. A respondent is also permitted in
certain circumstances to respond to more than one claim on a single ET3 response form.

The response must be presented to the tribunal office within 28 days of the date the claim form was sent by the
tribunal to the respondent. The date of sending is not included in the calculation of time, so if a claim form was sent
by the tribunal to the respondent on 1 October the response would have to be presented to the tribunal by 29
October. The calendar date by which the response needs to be presented to the tribunal should be set out in the
response pack. The rules allow for a respondent to apply for an extension of time for presenting the response both
before and after expiry of the time limit. The tribunal will consider a variety of factors in deciding whether or not to
exercise its discretion to extend time.

The response will be rejected if it is defective (not on the prescribed form or without the required minimum
information) or presented late (where no application for an extension of time is outstanding). The respondent may
apply for reconsideration of that decision on the basis that the decision was wrong or the defect that caused the
rejection can be rectified. The respondent may request that the application is considered at a hearing. Where the
application concerns the rectification of a defect, if the application succeeds the response will be treated as
presented at the date the defect was rectified rather than when it was originally presented. If the date on which the
defect was rectified is after the time limit for presentation, the respondent may also need the tribunal to exercise its
discretion to extend time.

For further information, see our Practice Note: Responding to a claim.

Employer's contract claim

A respondent employer is entitled to make a contract claim against

The decisions of the industrial tribunal are not subject to appeal, except on points of
law. In addition, its awards are binding and cannot be revised prior to the elapsing of at
least one year after the issue of any such award.

In some cases, other instruments are sought, such as the general law courts, to settle
matters in which the law was allegedly violated at the place of work.

Employment tribunals were first established to provide a cheap and accessible

service for the quick resolution of legally based employment disputes. With the
decline of collective industrial relations and the growth of legislation on individual
employment rights, employment tribunals have acquired a new prominence.
However, in doing so employment tribunals have also been heavily criticized for
becoming too legalistic and formal. This article takes issue with this tendency to
criticize the work of employment tribunals. It closely investigates the role of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in Ireland and finds that while it has become
legalistic it still plays an important role in employment standard-setting. The article
argues that employment relations systems in Anglo-Saxon countries are increasingly
rights-based and that bodies like the EAT now play a key role in the functioning of
such systems.

Employment Status In
Employment Law
The question of the Employment Status in one of the most difficult to answer in
Employment Law. In the modern era this question is becoming more and more
complicate due to the complex and variety, in constant growth of the atypical workforce
situations. The variety of situations do not allow to clearly identify who is an employee,
who is a worker and who is an employer; different degrees of in/dependency make things
much more complicated to define. (Guy D.) What is the meaning of employment'
required in law to be considered an employee and what types of workers are not. Many
tests have been developed in order to clarify and determine the differences. Other
categories of work relationships are then considered and examined particularly in order to
see whether they are mutually exclusive with employment or whether they overlap.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (ET) Employment tribunals were established under the

Industrial Training Act 1964. They are now governed by the Employment Tribunals
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004/1861 as amended by the
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment)
Regulations 2004/2351, the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of
Procedure) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2004/1865, the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2008/2683,
the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment)
Regulations 2008/3240, the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Employment Tribunals were previously referred
to as Industrial Tribunals. Their name was changed by s 1 of the Employment Rights
(Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 which took effect on 1 August 1998. In April 2006 the
Employment Tribunals Service joined the Tribunals Service. This is a government
agency within the Ministry of Justice. The Tribunals Service provides administrative
support to the main central government tribunals. Further detail on the role of the
Service can be found at www.tribunals.gov.uk/. A link to the Employment Tribunals
website can be accessed from the Tribunal Service home page. Cases are heard by
a panel of three people: a legally qualified Employment Judge and two lay members.
One lay member is drawn from a list representing employer organisations and the
other from one representing employee organisations. Legal Aid is not available for
representation in the Employment Tribunal. In 2000 the term legal aid was
renamed legal help (referring to legal advice), and legal help at court (referring to
representation). At this time the Legal Services Commission replaced the Legal Aid
Board. The Community Legal Service was also set up in order to supply details of
advisers who may be able to assist the individual with employment law problems. It
has long been thought that legal help at court should be extended to include
representation in the Employment Tribunal. In January 2001 an extension for such
representation was given in Scotland. This has been extended to cover complex
cases only. This extension does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Legal
help at court is available for representation in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Applicants to the Employment Tribunal may seek funding and/or representation
from their trade union. Law Centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux may also be of
assistance. In cases concerning alleged discrimination, the Equality and Human
Rights Commission may assist either financially or by providing representation.
Tribunals are bound by the earlier decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
(EAT). This means that these have to be taken into account when dealing with new
cases. Tribunals are also bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal, the
Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice.

Procedure

Employment tribunals are constituted and operate according to statutory rules issued by
the Secretary of State.[3][4][5] These rules, known as the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, set
out the Tribunals' main objectives and procedures, and matters such as time limits for making a
claim, and dealing with requests for reviews. The Rules for appeals are governed by the separate
Rules of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

A party making a Claim has to present (i.e. physically deliver) a valid Claim Form, on a prescribed
form, to an Employment Tribunal office within the appropriate time limit. A Claim Form can be
presented electronically (over the internet or by e-mail). If a Claim Form is late, even by a few
seconds, then the employment tribunal may not be permitted to hear it and the claim may be
dismissed on that basis alone, without a consideration of the merits, at a Pre-Hearing Review.

A party defending a claim has to present a Response Form (a prescribed form) to the employment
tribunal handling the claim within 28 days of being sent the Claim Form by the employment tribunal.
If a party fails to present a Response Form, then it will be debarred from taking part in proceedings,
which may proceed undefended.
The employment tribunals are expected to reject a claim form or a response form if it is not provided
on a prescribed form. Also, certain information must be provided on the form for it to be valid and
accepted.

The rules concerning time limits are complex but the typical time limit for making a claim is three
months from the date of the act complained of, such as being unfairly dismissed or not being paid
wages. The employment tribunals may grant an extension of time to bring a complaint if certain
conditions are met, the test that applies depends upon the complaint with three broad categories. A
complaint of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and other similar
claims can only be considered if it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been
presented before, and if the complaint is presented within a reasonable time thereafter. This is a
matter of evidence for the person bringing the claim. In discrimination complaints, the time limit is
less strict, and a claim may be heard if it is late if it is considered to be just and equitable to do so.

Time limits of six months apply for claims for Equal Pay (taken from the end of employment with no
extensions at all), and for a redundancy payment (with a consideration as to whether or not it was
reasonably practicable to present the claim in time).

Claims are normally initiated by individuals, and normally responded to by employers, or former
employers, or trade unions. The terms "claimant" and "respondent" are used to describe the parties
involved in Tribunal proceedings. Normally each party pays its own costs. Tribunals will order one
party to pay the other party's costs in exceptional circumstances, where it is claimed that one party
has claimed vexatiously. There is now 64 different jurisdictions which an employee can bring a
tribunal for.[6]

If a former employee brings a claim for breach of contract, then the defending employer has a limited
right to bring a counter-claim for breach of contract against a former employee. However, an
employer may not bring a claim for breach of contract if an employee is complaining simply of unfair
dismissal (which is not a claim for breach of contract but a statutory claim). In all cases, the
employment tribunal may not award damages that exceed 25,000 for all claims for breach of
contract.

One peculiarity of the employment tribunals is that a claim for breach of contract cannot be brought
until the employee's employment has ended, and a claim can only be brought if it arises or is
outstanding on the termination of employment. The employment tribunals also can only hear certain
types of claim for breach of contract, under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction)
Orders 1994, which are Statutory Instruments. There are two Orders, one for Scotland and one for
England and Wales.

Both an employer and an employee may bring claims for a reference to be made to an Employment
Tribunal for a declaration as to the contents of a statement of particulars of employment, which may
arise if there is a dispute as to the content of a contract.

Tribunals are intended to be informal and to encourage parties to represent themselves. There is no
special court dress or complex civil procedure rules as at a County Court.
The confidential use of conciliation is encouraged, and parties have an ACAS officer assigned to
most claims to assist the parties in reaching a binding agreement to end the claim. All
communications with ACAS are subject to privilege and are confidential unless the party waives that
right. The parties may also settle a claim by a Settlement Agreement, or, if at a hearing, by drawing
up a Tomlin Order and asking the Employment Tribunal to agree to the disposal of the case in
accordance with that Order.

If a person habitually and without reasonable excuse brings vexatious proceedings in the
Employment Tribunals, a government law officer may apply to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for
an Order declaring that person to be a vexatious litigant, which has the effect of barring that person
from bringing further proceedings in the Employment Tribunals without the consent of the
Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Tribunal process[edit]

An Employment Tribunal will hear specific complaints from an aggrieved party being deprived of their
rights, including (but not limited to) unfair dismissal, discrimination and unlawful deduction from
wages. Almost all complaints are made by employees or workers, or former employees or workers.
The website of the Employment Tribunals carries a jurisdiction list, explaining what complaints or
references can be heard.

The process is almost always started when a Claim Form is presented to the Employment Tribunal.
The Employment Tribunal will, if it accepts the Claim Form, then send it to the respondent (usually
the former employer) and the respondent must submit a response form within twenty-eight days of
the Claim Form being sent to it, or else the Tribunal may enter a default Judgment, and the
respondent may not take part in proceedings. Any preliminary issues are dealt with at a case
management conference or a pre-hearing review, a period of time is allowed for ACAS (GB) or the
LRA (NI) to explore settlement options, although in cases involving discrimination, there is no limit on
the involvement of conciliators. The Employment Tribunal may send out Orders to the parties which
typically involve, in England and Wales, the exchange of documents, the production of an agreed
bundle of documents and the exchange witness statements The order of a hearing will usually
depend upon which party has to face the burden of proof. In complaints of Unfair Dismissal, if the
employer admits the dismissal and the employee has more than one year's service at the time of
dismissal, then the employer has to show that the dismissal was for a fair reason. The employer will
therefore open the proceedings and give evidence first. In a discrimination claim, if the discrimination
is not admitted, then the employee or worker will have to prove that discrimination occurs and will
therefore open the case with evidence. Employment Tribunals are, however, entitled to be flexible
and can vary this practice. If there is a combination of a dismissal and discrimination, the employer
will usually open proceedings. Cases not resolved in their allocated time may be carried over to later
date(s) for further consideration of the merits and (if necessary) a separate remedy hearing to
discuss the award only. A summary judgment is given at the conclusion of the hearing, with the
parties given a further 14 days to request (unless they ask on the day) 'extended' written reasons
behind the judgement. In Scotland, it is customary for all decisions to be reserved and sent to the
parties in writing.

Complaints to tribunal and time limits[edit]

A complaint of unfair dismissal can only be made where there has been a dismissal, so that there is
no general right to complain of unfair treatment. Sometimes, the parties may disagree if an
employee has been dismissed or has resigned. An employee may, however, complain at any time
that they consider a statutory 'employment protection' right has been infringed. Where this takes
place in connection with a dismissal an employee may combine this with their complaint against the
dismissal.

Except where no qualifying time limit applies (as in the case of 'statutory rights') an employee needs
to have worked for their employer for a least a year in order to make a complaint of unfair dismissal
to an employment tribunal. This year does, however, include the statutory minimum period of notice
that an employee is entitled to under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which in the case of an
employee who has worked for more than one month but less than two years, is one week, so if an
employee is dismissed within a week of completing a year's employment, the minimum notice is
added, and the employee is carried "past the post" by the Employment Tribunal adding a notional
week of service, unless the employer is entitled to dismiss without notice in response to a
repudiatory breach of contract by the employee. A claimant may raise a complaint of discrimination
without claiming dismissal or whilst also claiming dismissal but without one year of service.
Claimants with less than one year's service may find their unfair dismissal claim is brought to a pre-
hearing review where they are asked to explain why they feel they can bring a claim without a year's
service, i.e. dismissal due to a public interest disclosure or for being a trade union member. Most
tribunal offices however write to the claimant upon receipt of their claim form telling them that they
have 14 days to show why their claim should be heard, otherwise the chairman will strike out the
claim.

In certain circumstances, an employer's conduct could be such that an employee is entitled to resign
in response and to regard that as an unfair "constructive" dismissal. Failure by an employer to
extend a fixed term contract under the same terms as before can also be an instance where a claim
for unfair dismissal may be made.

Preacceptance protocols[edit]

A complaint of unfair dismissal must be made to an employment tribunal within 3 months of the
effective date of termination of the employment, unless it is not reasonably practicable to present the
complaint. This time limit is strictly enforced, and even a day's delay means that the Employment
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. If the claim is of constructive dismissal, the
complainant must first raise a grievance in writing with the employer before submitting a complaint.

If the substance of the complaint has been raised in writing with the employer either before or within
4 months of termination, then a claimant has 6 months from the effective date of termination to
submit a complaint of Unfair Dismissal to an Employment Tribunal. If the substance of the complaint
has not been raised either before or within 4 months of termination, the ET has no jurisdiction to
hear a complaint of Unfair Dismissal. If a grievance is submitted by the end of the fourth month from
termination, the claimant has a further two months within which to submit a complaint to an ET. If
making a complaint of an express unfair dismissal, i.e. not a "forced resignation" the employee is not
required to raise a grievance.

Most solicitors within the UK will submit all complaints on the claim form (ET1) within the three
months from the effective date of termination (EDT) "to protect their client's position", with some of
the claims being rejected and subjected to the preacceptance protocol. If the former employee has
not raised a grievance, then the sending of the Claim Form to the employer can count as a
grievance. The ET should reject the Claim Form and return it to the claimant. The claimant (or the
claimant's advisers) then must wait 28 days and then simply resubmit the same claim with the
grievance information filled in, which allows the tribunal to proceed to accept the preaccepted claims.
Claim forms which are rejected entirely and subject to preacceptance in whole, are not notified to the
respondent at all, as preacceptance is an administrative decision. Only if part of the claim is
accepted with the rest subject to preacceptance, is the claim form served on the respondent with a
blank response form which must be submitted to the ET within 28 days.

If a claimant has not submitted a complaint with the 3 month period, the tribunal will likely invite the
claimant to write to the chair of the tribunal explaining why they feel the claim should be accepted
out of time, within 14 days of the tribunal writing to the claimant. Those tribunals that do not pick this
up will invite the respondent to address this in the response form (ET3) and a pre-hearing review will
most likely be arranged to discuss the same.

The pre-acceptance process introduced by the Employment Act 2002 has been heavily criticised as
complex and unwieldy. The Department of Trade and Industry has issued a consultation paper
seeking views on a repeal of the statutory dispute resolution procedures, and is currently considering
the responses submitted.

Tribunal awards[edit]

If a claimant is successful in a claim for unfair dismissal then they can be given a "compensatory
award". There is no statutory restriction on what may be awarded under this heading, except that it
must be "just and equitable in all the circumstances". In the main a compensatory award reflects
past loss of earnings, together with a sum for future loss of earnings. A notional sum is often
awarded for "loss of statutory rights" (For example: The need to work a further 12 months to re-
acquire the right to complain of unfair dismissal) . The compensatory award is limited by a statutory
cap (from 1/2/2005 this was 56,800). This "cap" is increased annually in line with inflation (from
1/2/2006 it was 58,400 and from 1/2/2007 it is 60,600). The statutory cap does not apply to claims
for discrimination, nor does it apply to unlawful deductions from wages.

Where the unfairness in a dismissal is procedural only, a respondent may be able to claim that the
employee's compensation should be limited to the period the respondent would have needed to
dismiss the employee fairly in any event - as when making assessments in selecting particular
employees for redundancy, for instance. This is known as a "Polkey" reduction. An award may also
be reduced because of contributory fault on behalf of a claimant, i.e. the claimant's conduct broke
down the employment relationship to some degree or disrupted the grievance or disciplinary
proceedings. In some cases this may be as much as 100%, so that an employee might take home
nothing. An employee is entitled to a declaration that s/he has been unfairly dismissed, and this can
be some solace if compensation is low. Where, however, there has been a failure to comply with the
statutory dismissal and disciplinary (or grievance) procedures (as set out in the Employment Act
2002), and the dismissal is "automatically" unfair, the Employment Tribunal will increase the award
made by between 10% and 50%. (There is currently a review underway to determine whether or not
to revoke the statutory procedures and/or the impact of failing to comply with them).

Compensation for discrimination claims is not subject to statutory limits however and, in the case of
highly paid employees, can be substantial. Compensation is awarded in discrimination cases under
a distinct head known as "Injury to feelings." A number of leading cases, principally the "Vento" case,
provide guidance to the Tribunal on how to determine the value of an injury to feelings award. There
are three bands: the lower band (500-5000), the middle band (5,000-15,000) and the upper
band (15,000-25,000). Occasionally, the value of a case can substantially exceed these
guidelines, for example the case of Sergeant Gurpal Verdi, where he successfully pursued the
Metroploitan Police for a sum in excess of 200,000. It must be recognised that these were
extraordinary circumstances, however. Again, a failure by the employer to comply with the statutory
grievance procedure will result in an uplift to the award of between 10% and 50%, whilst a failure by
the employee will result in a corresponding reduction.

In addition, the tribunal is unable to award more than 25,000 in respect of a claim for breach of
contract, as the law imposes a cap on the amount of the compensation payable. Claimants with
large contractual claims should therefore carefully consider whether it would be more appropriate to
issue proceedings in the High Court or County Court.

Resolution of disputes
What is dispute resolution?

Dispute resolution refers to the processes by which disputes are brought to an end.
This can occur through:

a negotiated outcome, where the parties concerned sort out things themselves

a mediated outcome, where the parties use the services of an independent

mediator to help them arrive at their own agreement, or

an arbitrated or adjudicated outcome, where an independent arbitrator or court

determines how the dispute is to be resolved and makes a binding decision or order
to this effect.
Roles

The roles of the employment tribunal are many fold. The primary role, in a broad sense, of the
employment tribunal is to resolve any disputes that arise between employers and employees in the
business and workplace. The need for equality in employment and in the workplace is the main
reason employment tribunals were established in the UK. On a more specified basis, the role of
employment tribunals is to hear and make decisions on disputes regarding; unfair dismissal claims,
wrongful dismissal claims, discrimination claims, equal pay claims, deduction claims, redundancy
claims, breaches of contract, unfair working hour claims, statutory holiday entitlement,
underpayment of minimum wages, breach of Agency Workers Regulations, refusal of employment
based on trade union membership, part-time discriminatory claims, public duty and trade union
refusal, and other related contractual disputes

Roles-Discrimination Claims

A major role of employment tribunals is to deal with discrimination claims. Many people consider this
a small issue however the evidence suggests the opposite. Discrimination claims matter a great deal
to those who were victims of unlawful discrimination and to those of whom allegations of
discrimination have been made, and society as a whole. The importance of discrimination claims
was highlighted by Lord Steyn in the case, Anyanwu vs South Banks Students Union (2001). An
increasingly popular discriminatory claim is that of dismissals based on pregnancy. A common
example is when a woman informs her employer of her pregnancy and receives a notice the next
day of being dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

Roles-Presence

Additionally, the role of employment tribunals is simply their presence. The fact that there is an
authoritative body regulating employment laws means that employers have grown fearful of being
fined and sued. Their role is to ensure that this awareness remains in an employers mind. This will
ensure that employers make an effort to reduce discrimination and unlawful dismissals of
employees. The manner by which employment tribunals can guarantee this is by considering each
case as a serious matter.

Employment Tribunal vs. Ordinary Courts of Law

It is important to note that employment tribunals differ from ordinary courts of law in many ways. An
employment tribunal is much less formal, less expensive, and a significantly faster way to resolve
employment disputes. (Adminlawbc.ca, 2016) Tribunal members often have specialized knowledge
in contractual and employment related laws whereas an ordinary court judge has a general
knowledge of all the laws. The majority of contractual disputes are adjudicated by the ordinary courts
of law (High Court in England) however specialized disputes can be resolved in an employment
tribunal. There are many employment rights that do not appear in contracts and these can only be
enforced and regulated by employment tribunals and not ordinary courts of law. Ordinary courts of
law typically deal with disputes relating to; accidents at work, severance pay, wrongful dismissals,
restrictive covenants and mores serious issues such as forced sexual relations by employers on
employees which may hold criminal charges. These disputes cannot be solved by an employment
tribunal.

The Government is seeking views on measures to: achieve more early resolution
of workplace disputes so that parties can resolve their own problems, in a way that
is fair and equitable for both sides, without having to go to an employment tribunal;
ensure that, where parties do need to come to an employment tribunal, the
process is as swift, user friendly and effective as possible; help business feel more
confident about hiring people. The consultation aims to identify measures to
encourage parties to use early dispute resolution, including increased awareness of
mediation and realistic expectations of what employment tribunals can award; it
puts forward legislative proposals to simplify the employment tribunal process,
encouraging earlier settlement of claims where possible and more efficient handling
of claims; and it considers the qualifying period for employees before they can bring
a case to an employment tribunal (ET) for unfair dismissal. The proposals set out in
this consultation cover: Mediation Government is considering how we might
enable greater use of alternative dispute resolution tools such as mediation. The
consultation seeks to obtain more information about current use, costs and benefits,
and barriers. Early conciliation to require all claims to be submitted to Acas (the
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) in the first instance, rather than the
Tribunals Service. This would allow Acas a specified period (up to 1 month) to offer
pre-claim conciliation in all cases.

An employment tribunal may be more likely to find that the employers behaviour in breaching
the law had aggravating features where the action was deliberate or committed with malice, the
employer was an organisation with a dedicated human resources team, or where the employer
had repeatedly breached the employment right concerned. The employment tribunal may be
less likely to find that the employers behaviour in breaching the law had aggravating features
where an employer has been in operation for only a short period of time, is a micro business,
has only a limited human resources function, or the breach was a genuine mistake.

CONCLUSION
Industrial tribunal forms an integral part of Industrial dispute redressal
mechanism by adjudicatory process. As with all tribunals the Industrial
Tribunal as formed under S 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have some
obvious flaws like slow pace of adjudication etc. however from the quasi
judicial perspective the Industrial tribunal is one of the most successful
tribunal after the Income Tax appellate tribunals.

Although the legislature by its incessant amendments have tried to define

exactly the jurisdiction but the courts keeping in mind the social nature of
the act have always interpreted the jurisdiction clause in such a manner so
as to include most of the industrial disputes within the ambit of the act. Thus
today a matter belonging not only to third schedule can be referred but also
a matter from the second schedule can be sent for adjudication in the
tribunal.

Thus not only disputes relating to wages, compensatory and other

allowances, hours of work, bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity,
working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders, classification by
grades, rules of discipline, Retrenchment of workmen and closure of
establishment; etc are within the ambit of tribunal but also matters relating
to the propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the
standing orders, the application and interpretation of standing order,
discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of
relief to, workmen wrongfully, withdrawal of any customary concession or
privilege, illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out can be determined
upon or adjudicated however the most important import to the jurisdiction
from second schedule is the residuary clause thereby giving industrial
tribunal virtually the authority to adjudge any industrial dispute.

The Report of Task force on Employment Opportunities made some recommendations to

reform the labour laws of the country. These included:

The provisions regarding dismissal after due process need to be streamlined. Section 11A
of the Industrial Disputes Act which allows labour courts, Industrial Tribunals to
interpose the state in matters that are best left to established internal processes.
At present there is no time limit for filing disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act. This
encourages piling up of old disputes leading to delays in courts. A time limit of 3 years
should be stipulated within which a dispute could be referred for adjudication

Compulsory adjudication may well have contributed to the weakening of the trade union
movement in India, and complicated matters by bringing disputes before a centralised
dispute resolution mechanism under the States authority, though they may be addressed
just as well internally. At present, while it is difficult for labourers to secure their rights,
even employers are restricted by the laws that reflect the socialist bent of governance of
the period in which they were enacted, though these are hopelessly out of sync with
contemporary realities. All the while, the government holds too firm a grip, especially
over dispute resolution.

However, there is no viable alternative to this system. Stringent provisions, therefore are
required for ensuring the time limit within which the orders /awards to be implemented
and clothe the courts and tribunal with powers of contempt of court for non-
implementation of orders /awards passed by them. It is submitted that the need of the day
is to evolve the frame-work in which workers and the management perceive the need to
co-operate. Bilateral regulation is the most effective method of evolving norms which
enjoy wide acceptance [40] and till happens the situation of labour laws in India
especially industrial dispute laws will not improve.
i

ii

iii

iv

vi

vii

viii

ix
x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi