PROJECT REPORT

ON

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO: PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. P.S. Ravishankar RITVIKA THAKUR

AGM (Law Department) SEMESTER- IV, 2nd YEAR
BHILAI STEEL PLANT B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)
Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

(DATE OF SUBMISSION- 29/05/2014)

BHILAI STEEL PLANT

(LAW DEPARTMENT)

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and gratefulness to Mr. P.S.
Ravishankar, AGM (Law Department, BSP) for putting his trust in me and giving me a project
topic such as this and for having the faith in me to present my report in the best possible way. I
would also like to thank Mr. S.S. Bains for the guidance he provided during the tenure of my
working in this project. Sir, thank you for providing me with an opportunity that helped me to
grow.

My gratitude also goes out to Mr. T.P. Soni for the information he provided on relevant issues
and also for case studies and practical knowledge he gave me during the course of this project. A
word of gratitude goes to Mrs. Aditi Satpathy for mentoring me in the truest sense during the
course of this project. I would also like to thank Bhilai Steel Plant for providing with the
infrastructural facilities in the form of law library and internet services that were a source of great
help for the completion of this project.

Further, I would like to extend my gratitude towards my father Mr. Jyotindra Nath Thakur for
inspiring me and supporting me while I was working on this project. He provided me not just the
confidence to complete it but also with ideas and suggested ways to make the project better. Thank
you for the useful discussions and guidance.

Last but not the least, a heartfelt thanks to my co-interns and friends who were there to help me
out even in the oddest of hours. Without you all this project wouldn’t be what it is.

Thanking you all sincerely,

Ritvika Thakur
Semester Four, 2nd Year
B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)
H.N.L.U., Raipur (C.G.)

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Chapter Page No.

1. Certificate of Declaration 4

2. Introduction 5

3. a) Objectives of study 7
b) Research Methodology
4. Enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 8-11
a) Developmental Timeline 8
b) Applicability of the Act 9
c) Objectives of the Act 10
d) Salient features 11
5. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Interpretation Clause 12-15

6. Industrial Disputes: An Analysis 16-21

7. Authorities under the Act 21-24
8. Industrial Disputes in Bhilai Steel Plant 25-31
a) Retrenchment 26
b) Penalty on grounds of misconduct (as per Standing Orders) 27
c) Denial of Compassionate Appointment 28
d) Unauthorized Absenteeism 30
9. Conclusion 32
10. References 33

3|Page
 CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION

The researcher hereby declares that the project work entitled “INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES”
submitted to the Law Department (Bhilai Steel Plant) is a record of an original work done by the
researcher under the guidance of Mr. P.S. Ravishankar, AGM (Law Department) at Bhilai Steel
Plant (C.G.)

The research done by the researcher is her own original work and wherever excerpts from the
works of different authors have been taken, they have been duly acknowledged.

Declared By:

Ritvika Thakur
Semester- IV (2nd Year)
B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)
H.N.L.U. Raipur

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

During the 18th- 20th century, a new branch of jurisprudence known as industrial jurisprudence has
developed across the world and subsequently in our country. Industrial jurisprudence is of great
importance to all developed or developing countries of the world because it is concerned with the
study of problems related to human relations arising out of a large scale development of factory
system which has emerged in consequence of industrial revolution. Proper regulation of employer-
employee relationship is a condition precedent for planned, progressive and purposeful
development of any society.

Welfare in industry can be achieved only if there is healthy understanding between employers,
workers and the Government. There can be no growth of the industrial structure unless workers
and employers realise their mutual responsibilities. Labour welfare has special significance in
India where the Constitution itself enjoins the promotion of humane conditions of work and
securing to all workers full employment of leisure and social as well as cultural opportunities.

With the advent of mechanical inventions came the industrial friction and unrest. Thus the modern
industrialization has brought blessings as well as inherent evils to society. The immediate victims
of these evils are the workers employed in the industries. Their efforts to eradicate such evils lead
to serious disputes and conflicts with the employers. The outbreak of such disputes and conflicts
is sometimes accompanied by a stoppage in the working of some parts of economic machinery.

As Sir Richard Lester1 observes, “the community as a whole has an interest in industrial relations
and labour disputes... Work stoppages may also cause the whole community to suffer a large
economic loss...Presumably the Government should afford some protection to third parties and
prevent the dispute from degenerating into industrial anarchy.” The prevention of industrial strife
thus assumes an important role in national policy.

Industrial relations play an important role in the establishment and maintenance of industrial
democracy. Industrial democracy cannot succeed unless all concerned- workers, employers,
Government and public- fully realise its importance and its due place in the national life.

1
Richard Lester, Economics of Labour, 1947, p.699

5|Page
Industrial workers in India had to go through these stages of privation for many decades. World
War-I brought a new awakening among the working class. The prevailing economic misery was
aggravated which led to generation of a feeling of class consciousness amongst the working class.
Workers resorted to strikes and employers retaliated by declaring lock-outs. Industrial peace was
thus violently disturbed. A need was felt, to enact legislations and statutes that could curb the
increasing differences between the employer class and the working class.

After independence it was largely felt that the labour policy must emphasise upon self-reliance on
the part of workers. Since independence till 1954, the period when Shri V.V. Giri was the Labour
Minister, all official pronouncements emphasised that labour should become self-reliant. An
equally forceful approach had been to prefer reliance upon the Government, thus, establishing the
concept of ‘Tripartism’. As per the system, the Government paid reliance on three-party approach,
namely, the trade union representing the workmen, the employers, and the Government. The Five-
Year Plans have also placed particular emphasis on measures for the welfare of the workers and
on the industrialization of India. The Government has accepted the establishment of a welfare
state, with economic policies based on the socialist pattern of society.

This need paved way for the labour legislations that form an integral part of development of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is the subject-matter of the instant research project. The
project further deals with certain basic concepts such as that of an industry, employer, workmen,
etc which are important for understanding the main issue of industrial disputes. The report then
looks into the dispute settlement mechanism as provided by the Act and in brief, its adoption by
the Bhilai Steel Plant. Lastly, the project report deals with certain case laws related with industrial
disputes with special reference to those of Bhilai Steel Plant.

6|Page
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This project seeks to give a brief idea of industrial disputes as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
with special reference to Bhilai Steel Plant. Following are the objectives of the given project report:

 To introduce the concept of Industrial Jurisprudence and its need;

 To trace the enactment of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its objectives as well as
applicability/jurisdiction;

 To put forth the concepts of industry and industrial disputes amongst others as per Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947;

 To analyse the authorities under the Act for redressal of grievances and settlement of industrial
disputes; and

 To highlight various instances of disputes in an industry with the help of relevant case laws
(with special emphasis on Bhilai Steel Plant);

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and electronic resources have been
largely used to gather information and data about the topic.

Books, case laws and other reference as guided have been primarily helpful in giving this project
a firm structure. Websites, articles and cases have also been referred.

Footnotes have been provided wherever necessary to acknowledge the same.

7|Page
 ENACTMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Industrial Jurisprudence in India is a development of mainly post-independence period although

its birth may be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before independence it existed merely in
a rudimentary form in our country. But later on with the development of industry, the Industrial
Law developed side by side. The growth of industrial jurisprudence can significantly be noticed
not only from increase in labour and industrial legislations but also from a large number of
industrial law matters decided by the Supreme Court and High Courts. Therefore, the progress of
a country depends upon the development of industry; the Industrial Laws play an important role
in the national economy of a country.

In the 18th century, India was not only a great agricultural country but a great manufacturing
country too. But the British government in India as a matter of policy discouraged Indian
manufacturers in order to encourage the rising manufacturers in England. In India, with the advent
of 19th century and growing consciousness amongst the working class, a number of labour
legislations have been enacted to promote the condition of the labour keeping in view the
development of industry and national economy.

 Developmental Timeline

Prior to 1929, the only law in force to settle disputes was the Employers and Workmen (Disputes)
Act, 1860. The provisions of the Act were confined to the settlement of disputes concerning wages.
Apart from its limited character, the Act contained various undesirable provisions such as the one
which made breach of contract by a workman, a criminal offence. Also, there was an absence of
tripartite system (between and amongst employers, workmen and Government).

Though Government enacted a few labour laws, it did not intervene to settle disputes and secure
good employer-employee relations except in cases of prolonged strikes. Owing to numerous strikes
and lockouts in important industries during the period of 1928-1929, Government was forced to
enact the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, for promoting early settlement of disputes by providing for
enquiry and conciliation board. The 1929 Act was amended in 1938; it authorized Central &
Provisional Government to intermediate at the time of industrial disputes.

8|Page
Further Govt. introduced Defence of India Rules post World War II. Rule 81A gave powers to the
Government to intervene in the Industrial Disputes so as to provide speedy remedies. Further
Standing Orders Act of 1946 was also passed.

On the basis of Trade Disputes Act, 1938, Defence of India Rules and Standing Orders Act, 1946,
Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1945 which
embodied the essential principles of Defence of India Rules and Trade Disputes Act, 1938
concerning Industrial Disputes. The Bill was passed in March 1947 and became a law from 1947
which came to be known as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

As such, it would not be wrong to consider the Constitution of India as the source of all labour
laws. All the matters related to labour laws such as trade unions, industrial and labour disputes are
covered under entry-22 of List III of Schedule VII i.e. the Concurrent List while all matters of
Industrial dispute concerning Union employees (under public utility services or services in national
interest) are covered under entry-61 of List I of Schedule VII, i.e. the union list. As such, the Union
government as well as the State governments have framed various laws to deal with labour related
issues. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is one of the initial legislative steps taken by the Parliament
in this regard.

Before understanding the intricacies of the aforementioned Act, it is desirable to take note of its
applicability and its objectives as stated in the Act itself.

 Applicability of the Act

The Act is applicable in the whole of India as per Section-1 of the Act. The Act has been extended
to new provinces and merged states such as the states of Manipur, Tripura and the states merged
into the State of Bombay. Further, this Act has been also applied to the union territory of
Pondicherry, Daman and Diu as well as to Goa. Now this Act has been applied to the state of
Jammu and Kashmir by the Central Labour Laws (Extension to Jammu and Kashmir) Act, 1970.

The Act however, does not apply to members of the Railway Protection Force constituted under
the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.

9|Page
The Industrial Disputes Act does not override state laws on the same subject matter2. Section 31
of the ID Act as amended in 1956 provides for the same.

Further, Schedule-I to the Act specifically lays down certain industries that are declared as public
utility services for the purposes of the Act. Schedule-I read with Section-2(n)(vi) provides an
inexhaustive list of around 20 industries (such as transport by land or water for the carriage of
passengers or goods, banking, cement, coal, cotton textiles, defence establishments, foodstuffs, fire
brigade service, copper, lead, zinc mining, iron ore, pyrites and phosphorite mining, service in the
uranium industry, service in any oil field, hydrogen gas industry, surgical and pharmaceutical
industry, leather etc.) that are declared as public utility services for the purpose of this Act, entry-
7, thereof, mentions Iron and Steel industries. Therefore, Bhilai Steel Plant comes under the
purview of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is applicable over BSP being involved in a public
utility service. Further, upon an amendment in 2010, the Act has been made specifically applicable
over Bhilai Steel Plant along with the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Both these Acts
have similar, if not the same, objectives to deal with the employee-employer relationship that are
enumerated subsequently.

 Objectives of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The Supreme Court has analysed the Industrial Disputes Act, 19473 in various cases and laid down
the principal objects of the Act in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management
of Dimakuchi Tea Estate4as follows:

1. The promotion of measures for securing amity and good relations between the employer
and workmen.
2. An investigation and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and employers,
employers and workmen or workmen and workmen with a right of representation by a
registered Trade Union or Federation of Trade Unions or Association of employers or a
federation of association of employers.

2
Several State Governments have enacted laws relating to industrial disputes such as the MP Industrial Relations Act,
1960 (later on adopted as C.G. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 by the state of Chhattisgarh); Bombay Industrial
Relations Act, 1946, etc.
3
Hereinafter, also referred to as the ID Act, 1947
4
AIR 1958 SC 353

10 | P a g e
 3. The prevention of illegal strikes and lockouts.
4. Relief to workmen in the matter of layoff, retrenchment and closure of an undertaking.
5. Collective bargaining.

 Salient features

Some of the distinguishing features of the ID Act, 1947 may be summarized as under:

1. Any industrial dispute may be referred to an industrial tribunal by an agreement of parties

to the dispute or by the Appropriate Government if it deems it expedient to do so.
2. An award declared the arbitrator shall be binding on both the parties to the dispute for the
specified period not exceeding one year. It shall be normally enforced by the government.
3. Prohibition of illegal strikes and lockouts.
4. Compensation to the workmen in cases of layoff, retrenchment and transfer or closure of
an undertaking.
5. A number of authorities such as the Works Committee, Conciliation Officers, Board of
Conciliation, Courts of Enquiry, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal
are provided for the settlement of industrial disputes. Each one of these authorities plays
an important role in speedy redressal of grievances and peaceful and amicable settlement
of disputes, thus, ensuring industrial peace.

As a matter of fact, the object of the industrial relations legislations in general is industrial peace
and economic justice. The prosperity of any industry very much depends upon its growing
production. Dissatisfaction with the existing economic conditions is the root cause of industrial
disputes. There are some other factors that influence the production, namely existence of any
dispute between the employers and workmen, thus, creating a sort of interruption and hindrance
in the industrial peace. Every industrial relations legislations, thereby, intends to ensure that the
production process does not stop even during the existence of any dispute. As such, they provide
for amicable means of settlement of these disputes, like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore, every such legislation aims at providing conditions congenial to the industrial peace.

11 | P a g e
 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: Interpretation Clause

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides the meaning of certain basic terms essential to
understand the concept of industrial disputes. The interpretation clause as given under Section-2
provides these definitions. Some important terminology and concepts are given hereunder:

 APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT:

The Central Government as well as the State Governments are vested with various powers and
duties in relation to matters dealt with in this Act. In relation to some industrial disputes the Central
Government and in relation to some others the State Government concerned are the Appropriate
Governments [as provided under Section-2(a) of the Act and further elaborated in sub-sections
2(a)(i)(a), 2(a)(i)(b) and 2(a)(ii)] to deal with such disputes. Whether the Appropriate Government
is the Central Government or the concerned State Government depends upon the subject-matter of
the dispute.

 EMPLOYER:

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines an ‘employer’ in Section-2(g) as:

a. In relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the

Central Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or
where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department.
b. In relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive
officer of that authority.

The industries run or owned by the authorities other than the Central and State Governments or
local authorities, are also covered by this expression under the Act. It was held by the Supreme
Court that where a worker or group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods
or services are for the business of another then that other is, in fact the employer.5

5
Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tezhilali Union, AIR 1978 SC 1410

12 | P a g e
  INDUSTRY:

Definition of the term industry first originated from Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section-2 (j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that:

The term ‘industry’ means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers & includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen.6

The question as to what comes under the purview of industry has baffled the courts, and to answer
it is not easy. The application of tests laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court is not
found to be uniform. At times the tests are qualified in subsequent cases and in some, reasons given
by judges are contradictory and difficult to reconcile. The tests of ‘industry’ have been formulated
and applied to find out what falls within and outside the definition of industry. The judgments on
the subject have crystallized the features or the essentials of industry, the working principles, and
the ruling tests for characterization or identification of an ‘industry’.

Bangalore Water Supply v. A Rajappa7judgment analysed earlier decisions8 and laid down the
guiding principles to judge whether an activity is an industry and the situations in which exclusion9
can be claimed. The test, known as the TRIPLE TEST, so laid down states that any activity
systematically carried on with cooperation between the employer and the workmen for the
production, supply or distribution of goods and/or services with a view to satisfy human wants or
wishes is an industry. It must not be for oneself, nor for pleasure nor necessarily for profit.10 If the
organization is a trade or business, it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating
the undertaking.

Where a department discharges many functions, some pertaining to industry as defined in the Act
and other non-industrial activities, the predominant functions of the department shall be the

6
This section is based on Section 4 of Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Act, 1904 which is an Australian
statute.
7
1978 SC 548
8
D.N. Banerjee v P.R. Mukherjee [1953 SC 58]; Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case [; Madras Gymkhana Case [ (1968)
1 SCR 742]; Safdurjung Hospital v. Kuldeep Singh [(1971) 1 SCR 177] and Solicitors’ case[1962 SC 1080]; Delhi
University v. Ram Nath [1963 SC 1873]
9
Excluded activities include spiritual or religious activities, sovereign activities of the State (not welfare activities or
economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies), etc.
10
Hospital Mazdoor Sabha Case [(1960) 2 SCR 879]

13 | P a g e
criterion for the purposes of the Act. Minor, subsidiary and incidental work should not be allowed
to lend its industrial colour to the principal activity. This is known as the DOMINANT NATURE
TEST. It is however important that the ‘Dominant Nature Test’ follows the ‘Triple Test’ as well.
This approach was illustrated in the Corporation of the City of Nagpur case11 and further approved
in the Bangalore Water Supply case.

The definition of Industry was, therefore, amended in 1982 to incorporate the TRIPLE TEST and
also to specifically exempt certain establishments and undertaking from the purview of the
definition so given. This definition has however not enforced yet and the position of the decision
given in Bangalore Water Supply case still stands strong.

 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES:

Industrial Dispute is defined in Section 2(k) of ID Act, 1947. This definition is a modification of
definition given in Section 2(j) of Trade Dispute Act, 1929.

It provides that industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and
employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen or workmen, which is
connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the
conditions of labour, of any person.

The analysis of this definition as provided in the Act and considered by the Court in several
judgments is the subject-matter of the research project. Hence, it will be discussed in the
subsequent chapters of the project report.

 WORKMAN:

The definition of workman is important because the Act aims at investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes which implies a difference between employer and workmen. The term
‘workman’ has been defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in three parts,
substantive, inclusive and exclusive. As per the statute, ‘workman’ means any person (including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, clerical
or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied

11
(1960) 2 SCR 942

14 | P a g e
(SUBSTANTIVE PART), and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act, in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute (INCLUSIVE PART)

‘Workman’ does not include any such person (EXCLUSIVE HALF) -

a. Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957;
or
b. Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
c. Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
d. Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or
by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

The expression apprentice has not been defined in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An apprentice is
one who is a learner of art meaning thereby one who is bound by a legal agreement to serve an
employer for a period of years with a view to learn some handicraft, trade etc. in which the
employer is reciprocally bound to instruct him.

Distinction between Workman and Contractor

In the case D.C. Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra12, Supreme Court provided a clear distinction
between Workman and Contractor. The Supreme Court observed that the broad distinction
between workman and independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to
work, the latter agrees to get other persons to work.

Now that we are familiar with the basic terminology as used in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the researcher can move on to explain industrial disputes and the authorities provided under the
Act for settlement of such disputes and redressal of grievances. Following this, the report looks
into the mechanism adopted by Bhilai Steel Plant to incorporate the provisions of the Act and
exemplify these with the help of case laws.

12
AIR 1957 SC 264.

15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: An Analysis

Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen or workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of
any person.13

This definition is vital to the jurisdiction of industrial tribunal and the labour court since their
jurisdiction is generally confined by reference to the determination of ‘industrial dispute’, but it
should be remembered that this jurisdiction is in some cases further restricted to the points
specifically referred for adjudication and to matters incidental thereto and in other cases extended14
beyond this definition.15

The definition opens with and employs very general words of wide application. The definition
brings out the essential characteristics of the dispute with which the Act purports to deal. The
definition is in three parts.

i. There must be a dispute or difference. (FACTUM OF DISPUTE)

ii. The dispute must be between employers and employers, or between employers and
workmen or between workmen and workmen. (PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE)
iii. The dispute or difference must be connected with the employment, non-employment,
terms of employment or conditions of labour, of any person. (SUBJECT-MATTER OF
DISPUTE)

It is necessary to note that the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ presupposes the continued existence
of an industry.16 In Pipraich Sugar Mills17 case, it was observed that ‘it cannot be doubted that the
entire scheme of the Act assumes that there is in existence an industry, and then proceeds to
provide for various steps being taken, when a dispute arises in that industry.

13
Section-2(k) of the ID Act, 1947
14
Provisions of Section-33C(2) whereby the additional powers are assigned to the labour court. After the enactment
of Section-2A their jurisdiction stands expanded.
15
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate case, 1958 SCR 1156
16
Indian Metal &Metallurgical Corp. v. IT Madras 1952-I LLJ 364(M)
17
1956 SCR 872

17 | P a g e
To further explain the concept of industrial disputes, it is necessary that we analyse the different
parts of the definition so given under the Act.

 Factum of dispute

The essence of the dispute is disagreement. The dispute, if it is to form the basis of a reference,
must be a real dispute in fact. The expression dispute or difference as used in the Act means a
controversy which is fairly definite and of real substance and being connected with the terms of
employment or conditions of labour, is one which the contesting parties are directly and
substantially interested in maintaining their respective contentions. Thus, the term ‘industrial
dispute’ connotes a real and substantial difference having some element of persistency, and likely,
if not adjusted, to endanger the industrial peace of the community.18

There are innumerable subjects on which industrial disputes can arise between employers and
workmen. The Act does not specify any particular disputes as ‘industrial disputes’. However, the
Act has provided schedules19 giving subject-matters regarding which industrial disputes can arise
and be adjudicated by Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals.

 Parties to the dispute

The dispute may arise between employer and employer. This forms a very rare ground for
existence of any industrial dispute. Further, the Act also provides for any difference or dispute
between employer and workmen which is the most commonly observed scenario in the industrial
arena. Lastly, the Act includes dispute between workmen inter-se which is also a very rare
observance. The statute provides for peaceful and speedy settlement of disputes arising between
these parties.

18
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, 1978 SC 1088
19
Schedule-II (Matters within the jurisdiction of Labour Courts)- Propriety or legality of any order passed by an
employer under the Standing Orders; application and interpretation of standing orders; discharge or dismissal of
workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed; withdrawal of any
customary concession or privilege; illegality or otherwise of a strike or lockout; and all matters other than those
specified in the Third Schedule.
Schedule-III (Matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals)- Wages, including the period and mode of
payment; compensatory and other allowance; hours of work and rest intervals; leave with wages and holidays; bonus,
profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity; shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders;
classification by grades; rules of discipline; rationalization; retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment;
and any other matter that may be prescribed.

18 | P a g e
  Subject-matter of dispute

The dispute or difference that arises in any industry may relate to:

a. Employment: The concept of employment involves three ingredients- i) employer; ii)

employee; iii) the contract of employment.20 The word ‘employment’ refers to a condition
in which a man is kept occupied in executing any work. In other words, it means not only
an appointment to any office for the first time but also the continuity of that appointment.21

b. Non-employment: Non-employment is the negative of ‘employment’ and means that

disputes of workmen out of service with their employers are within the ambit of the
definition. It is the positive or negative act of an employer that leads to employment or
non-employment. The failure to employ or refusal to employ are actions on the part of the
employer which would be covered under the term ‘non-employment’

The words ‘connected with’ widen the scope of the dispute and do not restrict it by any means.
It would ordinarily cover all matters that require settlement between workmen and employers,
whether those matters concern the causes of their being out of service or any other question,
and it would also include within its scope the relief necessary for bringing about harmonious
relations between the employers and workers.22

c. Terms of employment: The word ‘terms’ postulate existence of contract of employment.

The rights and obligations of employer and employees inter se depend, in the first instance,
on the initial fact of a contract between the parties.

d. Conditions of service: Conditions of service may comprise matters from appointment to

termination and even beyond in matters like pension, etc. and matters pertaining to
disciplinary action.23 They may be laid down by standing orders, rules, regulations or bye-
laws.

20
Chintanman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1958 SCR 1340
21
Sukhnandan Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1957 Pat. 617
22
WIAA v. IT, 1949-I LLJ 245
23
State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108

19 | P a g e
 e. Conditions of labour: The expression ‘conditions of labour’ has reference to the amenities
to be provided to the workmen and the conditions under which they are required to work.
‘Terms of employment’ is an expression of amplitude and is wide enough to cover the
subjects of ‘employment’, ‘non-employment’ and ‘conditions of labour’. The word
‘conditions of labour’ in the definition of the Act point to work done by workmen.24

INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

To constitute a dispute, there must be some disagreement between workmen and employer who
stand in some industrial relationship upon some matter that affects or arises out of that relationship.
It must be concerned with an industry and the difference between the parties must be concerned in
some way with the ‘workman’ as defined in the Act.

The words ‘industrial dispute’ convey the meaning to the ordinary mind that the dispute must be
such as would affect large groups of workmen and employers ranged on opposite sides on some
general questions on which each group is bound together by a community of interests- such as
wages, bonus, allowances, pension, provident fund, number of working hours per week, holidays
and so on.

The Act is designed to deal with employees collectively and their employer. A dispute between a
single workman and the employer cannot be an industrial dispute unless it is taken up by the union
of employees or a number of workmen except in cases covered by Section- 2A25 which does not
control the definition in Section-2(k). The cause must be espoused by the union of the employees
or a considerable section of the employees.26 That is why industrial tribunals deal with disputes in
relation to individual cases only where such disputes assume the character of an industrial dispute
by reason of the fact that they are sponsored by the union or have otherwise been taken up by a

24
United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Shri Kedar Nath Gupta, 1952-I LLJ 782
25
Section-2A: Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute- Where any
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute
or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor
any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
26
Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, (1962) 3 SCR 893

20 | P a g e
group or body of employees as held in the case of Jagdish Narain Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan
Patrika Ltd & Anr.27

Section-2A is of limited application. It does not declare all individual disputes to be an industrial
dispute. Any dispute connected with any matter other than those mentioned in the provision, needs
to satisfy the test laid down in judicial decisions. Thus only a collective dispute could constitute
an industrial dispute but collective dispute does not mean that the dispute should either be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all or majority of the workmen of an industrial
establishment should be parties to it. All that is necessary is that those taking up the cause of the
aggrieved workman must be in the same employment, i.e., there must be community of interest
when the act complained against happened and not when the dispute was referred to.28

In order to make a dispute an industrial dispute it is not necessary that here should be a resolution
of substantial or appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there must be some
expression of ‘collective will’ of substantial or appreciable number of workmen taking up the
cause of the aggrieved workman.29

In Workmen of Indian Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Management of Indian Express Newspapers30,

a dispute relating to two workmen of Indian Express Newspapers Ltd. was espoused by the Delhi
Union of journalists which was an outside union. About 25% of the working journalists of the
newspaper were its members. It was held that the Delhi Union of journalists could be said to have
a representative character qua the working journalists employed in the Indian Express and the
dispute was thus transformed into an industrial dispute.

It must be noted here that a dispute is an industrial dispute even where it is sponsored by a union
which is not registered; but the Trade Union must not be one unconnected with the employer or
the industry concerned.

Thus, it can be concluded that the cumulative effect of Section-2(k) and Section-2A is that an
individual dispute of an industrial workman whether espoused by the union, a group of workmen
or by the workman himself is also an industrial dispute. Therefore, the doctrine that the dispute

27
(1994) II LLJ 600 (Raj.)
28
Shamsuddin v. State of Kerala & Ors., (1961) I LLJ 77
29
Mrs. P. Soma Sundaran v. Labour Court, (1970) I LLJ 558 (AP)
30
AIR 1970 SC 737

21 | P a g e
becomes an industrial dispute only if it is espoused by a union or a substantial number of workmen
has no validity after the addition of Section- 2A in respect of disputes mentioned therein.
Consequently, whether the dispute referred to is an industrial dispute within the meaning of
section-2(k) or section-2A of the Act is of no consequence so far as the Labour Court or the
Tribunal to which reference is made for adjudication is concerned.

AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT

The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, as set out in the preamble, is ‘to make provisions for
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes hereinafter
appearing’. The word ‘settlement’ suggests the idea of establishing compromise between the
interests of disputing parties. As such, the Act provides for different classes of authorities who are
entrusted with the powers and duties of investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.

The adjudication of industrial disputes has at the first instance been kept out of the jurisdiction of
the Municipal Courts. The various modes of settlement of disputes provided by the Act may
broadly be classified under the three heads, namely, a) CONCILIATION; b) ADJUDICATION;
and c) ARBITRATION.

Chapter-II sets out the authorities under the Act and they are: (1) the Works Committee, (2)
Conciliation Officers, (3) Boards of Conciliation, (4) Courts of Enquiry, (5) Labour Courts, (6)
Industrial Tribunals and (7) National Tribunals. These are different authorities with different
powers. The purposes for which they are set up are broadly indicated and their functions are
prescribed under the Act.

 CONCILIATION

Those authorities that make use of conciliation as the sole method of settlement of disputes are as
follows:

The Works Committee as prescribed under Section-3 consists of representatives of employers and
workmen engaged in a particular establishment and is constituted in the prescribed manner in order
to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employers

22 | P a g e
and workmen and to that end to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and
endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.

Section-4 talks about appointment of Conciliation officers. The Conciliation officers are appointed
by the notification by the Appropriate Government charged with the duty of mediating in, and
promoting the settlement of industrial dispute. He may be appointed for a specified area, or for
one specified industries in a specified area, or for one or more specified industries. The
appointment may be made either permanently or for a limited period. Similarly, Boards of
Conciliation are constituted as per Section-5 of the Act by notification by the Appropriate
Government as occasion arises for promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.

 ADJUDICATION

The following adjudicating authorities decide any dispute referred to them under the Act:

Labour Courts (Section-7), Industrial Tribunal (Section-7A) and National Tribunals (Section-7B)
are constituted by the appropriate Government for the adjudication of industrial disputes in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Chapter-IV prescribes the procedure, powers and duties
of the several authorities under the Act.

 ARBITRATION

Section-10A of the Act makes provision for voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration. The
section authorises the parties to the dispute themselves to choose their own arbitrator, including a
Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal.

Apart from the above, provision has also been made for the constitution of a Court of Enquiry
whose main function is to inquire into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to an
industrial dispute. Courts of Enquiry are constituted under Section-6 by notification by the
appropriate Government, as occasion arises, for the said purpose.

Different authorities which are constituted under the Act are set up with different ends in view and
are invested with powers and duties necessary for the achievement of the purposes for which they
are set up.

23 | P a g e
Scheme of Section-10

The steps which are contemplated in the manner indicated in Section-10 of the Act for a reference
of disputes to Boards, Courts, and Labour Courts, Tribunals or National Tribunals are indicated
while dealing with the scheme of the Act. The section provides for reference of industrial disputes
whether they exist or are apprehended to Boards of Conciliation for promoting a settlement, or to
a Labour Court or to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication or even to a National Tribunal.

The amendment made in 1982 in section-10 carry provisions for expeditious disposal of references
by imposing obligation on the appropriate Government to prescribe the time limit for disposal of
reference by the adjudicator, and inbuilt procedure for extension of time without the Government
coming in picture.

It also provides for the parties to an industrial dispute applying whether jointly or separately for a
reference of the dispute to a Conciliation Board, Court of Enquiry, Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal. Where a dispute has been so referred the appropriate Government is enabled to
prohibit the continuance of any strike or lockout.

Chapter- IV (Section-11 to 21) of the Act, further deals with the procedure, powers and duties of
the authorities set up under the Act. The Conciliation Officers as well as the Boards of Conciliation
are charged with a duty to bring about settlement of a dispute, without delay to investigate the
dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and are also empowered
to do all such things as they think fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to an amicable
settlement of the dispute. If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived
at in the course of conciliation proceedings, they are to send a report thereof to the appropriate
Government together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.

If no such settlement is arrived at, the Conciliation Officers or the Board of Conciliation (as the
case may be) have, as soon as practicable and after the close of the investigation, to send to the
Appropriate Government, a full report setting forth the proceedings and steps taken by them for
ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing a settlement thereof
together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, their findings thereon, the reasons
on account of which, in their opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at and their
recommendations for the determination of the dispute.

24 | P a g e
If, on a consideration of such report the appropriate government is satisfied that there is a case for
reference to a Board or Tribunal, it may make such reference.

The Labour Courts or Tribunals to whom an industrial dispute may be referred for adjudication
are to hold their proceedings expeditiously and, as soon as practicable on the conclusion thereof,
submit their award to the appropriate Government. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal with respect to industrial disputes is given under Schedule-II31 and Schedule-
III32 to the Act, respectively.

These are the steps which are contemplated in the manner indicated in Section-10 of the Act for
reference of disputes to various authorities established under the Act. It is not necessary that all
these steps should be taken seriatim one after the other. Whether one or the other of the steps
should be taken by the appropriate Government must depend upon the exigencies of the situation,
the imminence of industrial strife resulting in cessation or interruption of industrial production and
industrial peace endangering the public tranquillity and law and order. If the matter brooks delay
the appropriate Government may start conciliation proceedings culminating in a reference to a
Board of Conciliation and also Court of Enquiry, if need be, before a full-fledged reference is made
under Secrion-10 of the Act. If, on the other hand, the matter brooks no delay the appropriate
Government may possibly refer the dispute to a Board of Conciliation before referring it for
adjudication or may straightaway refer it for adjudication to any of the authorities in section-10.

31
Supra note-19
32
Supra note-20

25 | P a g e
 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN BHILAI STEEL PLANT

Bhilai Steel Plant is a flagship integrated steel plant unit of the Public Sector steel company, Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and is its largest and most profitable production facility. It is a
leading iron and steel plant established in the year 1955 by virtue of the Indo-Soviet agreement.
Bhilai Steel Plant currently employs about 27902 employees in both executive and non-executive
cadre. Further, several other workmen and officers are employed in the Nandini Limestone mines,
iron ore mines in Dalli Rajhara and the dolomite mines Hirri (near Bilaspur) either as permanent
employees or contractual labourers.

It is natural in such a scenario that issues of employer-employee difference/dispute arise now and
then. Such disputes are inevitable when such a large entity is considered. It is, however, noteworthy
that no issue of strike or lockout has ever been observed in Bhilai Steel Plant or any of its mines.
Trade Unions are an important part of the employer-workmen dialogue and interaction, but never
has it led to any stoppage of production or widespread protest. This is proof enough that the dispute
settlement and grievance redressal mechanism adopted by Management of Bhilai Steel Plant is
successful enough to tackle any industrial dispute.

Before dealing with the legal instances of industrial disputes in BSP, it is necessary to note that
the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 has become applicable over BSP only recently. Before the
applicability of the Central Act, a State Act i.e. Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960
occupied the arena. However, the three mines were governed by the ID Act, 1947 since their
inception. Moreover, there are different standing orders that govern the employees based on their
ranks/cadre. The Standing Orders (Plant) are applicable over the executives and non-executives
employed in the main Plant while Standing Orders (Mines) govern the workmen employed in the
three mines. As such, the misconduct, penalties, procedure for enquiry and other formalities may
be different in different cases.

These instances of industrial disputes may now be presented by means of several judgments of the
Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal with Bhilai Steel plant as one of the parties. For the sake of
covering a wide range of issues to be considered as Industrial disputes, four distinct cases are
given.

26 | P a g e
  Retrenchment

Retrenchment is a subject-matter of industrial dispute as per the analysis of definition provided

under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read along with the concerned Standing Orders.

In the case of Bajrang v. Bhilai Steel Plant33, in front of the Industrial Tribunal in Jabalpur (M.P.),
the management of Bhilai Steel Plant was not held liable for retrenchment of a contractual
workman.

The facts of the case may be summarized as follows:

i. Petitioner was a contractual workman employed in the Dalli Rajhara mines of Bhilai
Steel Plant appointed by the contractor M/s Commercial Transport Company. Thus,
Bhilai Steel Plant was not the actual employer but only a principal employer.
ii. As per the rules and procedure, regular medical check-up was done of each employee.
Thereby, a proper test was done by the Medical Board.
iii. The Petitioner was declared unfit for working in the mines by virtue of his poor vision
(6/60) as the Standing Orders (Mines) read with the concerned Rules prescribed the
required eyesight of 6/12 – 6/18).
iv. As such, the petitioner’s name was removed from Form-B and his entry into the mines
was stopped. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from employment by the
contractor.
v. Aggrieved by this, he filed a complaint against Bhilai Steel Plant for illegal
retrenchment.

The two major claims made by the petitioner were that Bhilai Steel Plant was its actual employer
as it payed his Provident Fund as mandated by the Standing Orders. Further, the medical report of
District Hospital (Durg) which declared him fit for working in the mines was not taken into
consideration before dismissing him from work.

The CGIT Jabalpur took into account all these contentions and found that, as such, the Provident
Fund was payed by the contractor who was the actual employer and not BSP. Furthermore, the

33
R/222/1989 (CGIT, Jabalpur)

27 | P a g e
report of District Hospital was not acceptable as per the Rules. Moreover, Rule 29(j) of the Mines
Act, 1952 allows provision for appeal to Medical Board for re-examination within 30 days. No
such appeal had been filed; therefore, the medical certificate of District Hospital was not
acceptable.

Hence, the Tribunal was of the opinion that Bhilai Steel Plant was not liable for illegal
retrenchment as claimed by the petitioner.

 Penalty on grounds of misconduct (as per the governing Standing Orders)

Application and interpretation of the Standing Orders is one of the most common grounds of
dispute/ difference between employers and workmen. An instance of such a dispute is seen in the
case of P.K. Trivedi v. Bhilai Steel Plant.34

In the instant case, the facts may be stated as:

i. The Petitioner was an employee in the Nandini Mines of the Bhilai Steel Plant and the
President of a Trade Union, CSSS, representing the workers in the mine.
ii. The Petitioner was charged with several misconducts as per the Standing Orders
(Mines) such as stoppage of work, inciting the co-workers to strike, holding meetings
within the Mines without authorization, etc.
iii. A departmental enquiry was held against the delinquent employee and as many as 5
charges out of the alleged 7 charges were affirmed and thereby he was held liable for
the misconduct.
iv. As a result of this, he was penalized with demotion of two grades to S-6 with
cumulative effect.
v. Aggrieved by the order of the management, the union referred the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal.

The Petitioner further contended that being the President of the Trade Union he was voicing against
the current conditions of work as well as the salary being given. But the management didn’t heed

34
NGP/R/12/2008

28 | P a g e
to their demands, on the other hand, he was being targeted unjustly. Also, the misconducts listed
in the charge-sheet against him and the penalty so imposed was not as per the Standing Orders.

The management put forth its witnesses and pleaded that his conduct called for dismissal but the
management took lenient view considering his age and penalized him with demotion of 2 grades
to S-6 with cumulative effect.

However, the Tribunal decided in favour of the departmental enquiry held against the Petitioner.
Taking into consideration the testimony of the officer in-charge of the mines as well as other
witnesses, 5 out of the 7 charges against the Petitioner were affirmed. The Tribunal, further, stated
that the penalty on grounds of misconduct was according to Section-29 of the Standing Orders
(Mines).

Hence, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the management upon its departmental enquiry
and the penalty was allowed as per Rules.

 Denial of Compassionate Appointment

A Central Administrative Tribunal judgment on denial of compassionate appointment was

observed in the cases of Ganesh Lal v. Bhilai Steel Plant35; Rama Rao v. Bhilai Steel Plant36;
Ansar Ahmed v. Bhilai Steel Plant37 and other cases.

These applications were disposed of under a common order by the Tribunal in a circuit sitting
Bilaspur by Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Dhirendra Mishra and Administrative Member Hon’ble
Mr. G.P. Singhal.

The facts of the case are discussed below:

i. The respondents, i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant, had given out an advertisement inviting
applications for compassionate appointment from wards of permanent medical unfit
(hereinafter PMU) employees who retired between 1st January, 1997 to 6th September,
2005.

35
Original Application No. 243 of 2012
36
Original Application No. 244 of 2012
37
Original Application No. 276 of 2012

29 | P a g e
 ii. On 20th May, 2010 the appointments were made.
iii. The applicant’s case was that wherein certain appointments were made on grounds of
compassionate appointments notwithstanding the scheme of such appointments, the
applicant was denied appointment as per the Scheme.
iv. Thereby, the applicant filed the instant application against the management of BSP and
SAIL on grounds of discrimination.

It is important to first consider the scheme of compassionate employment. The scheme of BSP was
that in case of death or permanent total disablement due to accident out of and in the course of
employment, one of the direct dependents would be provided compassionate appointment or he
may opt for employee family benefit scheme. However, if a family member of any of the PMU
employee is already in BSP, his case shall not be considered for compassionate employment.

The respondent had floated the scheme providing appointment in cases of PMU as per circular
dated 23rd May, 2009 and as per the scheme, now dependent of ex-employee declared PMU due
to diseases like kidney ailment, cancer, heart diseases, paralysis was floated. Clause-5 further
excluded family member of ex-employee in any plant or units of SAIL, while Clause-6 excluded
employees who had attained the age of 57 at the time of being declared PMU.

The Bench, thereby relied on the judgments of Supreme Court38 and held that the court cannot
order compassionate appointment dehors the statutory policy. The original applications in present
case were contradictory to floated scheme of BSP specifically Clause-5 and Clause-6. Moreover,
respondent denied the appointment of certain persons against Clause-5 and thus being
discriminatory. It therefore, dismissed the application.

38
State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321;
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94

30 | P a g e
  Dismissal for Unauthorized Absenteeism

Unauthorized absenteeism or leave without permission for more than 10 days is misconduct as per
the Standing Orders. An instance of industrial dispute arising because dismissal for unauthorized
absenteeism may be seen in the case of Samshul Hoda v. Bhilai Steel Plant.39

The applicant had referred the dispute in front of the Labour Court, Durg under Section-31 (3) read
with Section-61 of CGIR Act, 1960. The facts of the case may be given as follows:

i. The applicant was employed in the BSP. He was however irregular in attendance.
ii. Also he had been previously warned several times for unauthorized absence from work.
He had also been given minor punishments like suspension without pay, demotion to
lower grades, etc. as many as five times before for the same.
iii. He was then removed from service after misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty
for 315 days after holding a departmental enquiry wherein he self admitted the
misconduct as under Section- 29(5) of Standing Orders (Plant).
iv. The Petitioner then filed the application in Labour Court against his removal and to set
aside the report of departmental enquiry.
v. The Presiding Officer ruled in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of his contentions
and holding the enquiry as illegal since natural justice principle was not followed and
that the Enquiry Officer prevailed over him during the enquiry.
vi. The Court, thereby, quashed the decision of management for dismissal and ordered for
reinstatement without back wages.

An appeal was filed against the said order before the Industrial Court, Raipur by the Petitioner
SAIL through BSP under Section- 67 read with Section-64A of CGIR Act, 1960. The case of BSP
was that the enquiry was held properly following the principles of natural justice against the
delinquent employee. He had not submitted any reply to the charge sheet. He admitted charges
voluntarily; therefore there was no need/ necessity or occasion to examine any witness.

39
59/CGIR/ 2011

31 | P a g e
It is further a well settled principle of law that Enquiry Officer is not bound to tell the employee to
lead evidence in his defence.40 Further, there is no finding that the respondent was in any way
prejudiced in regard of not furnishing show cause notice and enquiry report.

The Industrial Court held that the Labour Court had committed material illegality in exercise of its
jurisdiction by setting aside the enquiry held against the respondent employee. Thus, decision of
the Labour Court is arbitrary against the settled principles of law, against Standing Orders and
perverse being passed on irrelevant considerations. Thus, the Industrial Court set aside the order
of Labour Court.

The respondent has now filed a petition in High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur challenging the
decision of Industrial Tribunal, a reply to which is yet to be filed. The case is pending in the High
Court.

The above given case laws are just the tip of the iceberg. There are several cases that deal with
industrial disputes, some of them similar to presented cases, some very rare. For the purpose of
present study, the most basic understanding of the concept of Industrial Disputes with special
reference to Bhilai Steel Plant can be summarized with the help of above analysis as given in the
course of this project report.

40
AIR 1967 Bom 147

32 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

Industrial jurisprudence is of great importance to all developed or developing countries of the

world because it is concerned with the study of problems related to human relations arising out of
a large scale development of factory system which has emerged in consequence of industrial
revolution. Welfare in industry can be achieved only if there is healthy understanding between
employers, workers and the Government.

This need paved way for the labour legislations that form an integral part of development of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was the subject-matter of the instant research project. The
report then looked into the dispute settlement mechanism as provided by the Act and in brief, its
adoption by the Bhilai Steel Plant. The project report also dealt with certain case laws related with
industrial disputes with special reference to those of Bhilai Steel Plant.

Such disputes are inevitable when such a large entity is considered. It is, however, noteworthy that
no issue of strike or lockout has ever been observed in Bhilai Steel Plant or any of its mines. Trade
Unions are an important part of the employer-workmen dialogue and interaction, but never has it
led to any stoppage of production or widespread protest. This is proof enough that the dispute
settlement and grievance redressal mechanism adopted by Management of Bhilai Steel Plant is
successful enough to tackle any industrial dispute.

33 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

1. Commentary of K.D. Srivastava on Law Relating To Trade Unions and Unfair Labour
Practices in India (Fourth Edition).
2. Goswani V.G., Labour and Industrial Laws (Vol.-II), (9thEdn. Central Law Agency 2011)
3. Malik P.L., Industrial Law (Vol.-2), Eastern Book Company (Twenty-fourth Edition).
4. Mishra S.N., Labour and Industrial Laws, (27th Edn. Central Law Publications 2013)
5. Patel Vithalbhai B., Law on Industrial Disputes (Vol.-I), (3rd Edn. Orient Law House)
6. Srivastava, Prof. SC, Labour Law and Labour Relations: Cases and Materials, Indian Law
Institute (Third Edition)

34 | P a g e