chapter 1 industrial relations –an...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 1
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS –AN OVERVIEW
Industrial relations play a crucial role in establishing and
maintaining industrial democracy. The establishment of good industrial
relations depends on the constructive attitude on the part of both the
management and the unions.1 The maintenance of good human relationships
is the main theme of industrial relations, because in its absence the
whole edifice of organisational structure may crumble.2 Industrial relation
is an art of living together for the purpose of production, productive
efficiency, human well-being and industrial progress. The existence of
good human relations, organised labour movement, collective bargaining,
fair dealing by management with the workers, joint consultation at all levels,
etc. is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of harmonious
industrial relations and for building up new attitudes and institutions.3
Thus, no industry can flourish unless there is industrial peace and co-operation.
India was first, second and third among the selected countries in the world in
1. S.K. Bhatia, International Practices in Industrial Relations, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi, 2002, pp.7-8.
2. C.B. Mamoria and S. Mamoria, Dynamics of Industrial Relations in India, Himalaya PublishingHouse, New Delhi,1995, p.209
3. A.M.Sarma, Industrial Relations Conceptual & Legal Frame Work, Himalaya PublishingHouse, Bombay, 1984, p.3.
2
the year 2002 with regard to mandays lost, number of workers involved and
number of disputes respectively.4
1.1 Concept of Industrial Relations
The concept of industrial relations has become a part and parcel of
management science since the emergence of the factory system in the early
nineteenth century. It also receives widespread attention even in the modern
industrial age, as it considers policies and activities for the betterment of
personnel in the industry.
The term “industrial relations” refers to industry and relations.
“Industry” means “any productive activity in which an individual is engaged”
and “relations” means “the relations that exist in the industry between the
employer and his workers”. The term ‘industrial relations’ is so broad that it
is not amenable to a precise definition. But the term is used synonymously
with labour relations, employee relations and union-management relations.
Even the personnel management is used interchangeably with industrial
relations.5 In its strict sense, the term “industrial relations”means “relationship
between management and workmen in a unit or an industry”. In its wider
connotation, it means the organisation and practice of multi-pronged
relationships between workers and management, unions and workers, and the
unions and managements in an industry.6
4. Year Book of Labour Statistics, I.L.O, Geneva, 2003.
5. W. D. Scott, R.C. Clothier and W.R. Spriegal, Personnel Management (sixth edition), McGrawHill, New York, 1961, p.195.
6. A.M. Sarma, op.cit., p.3.
3
According to the ILO, “Industrial relations deal with either the
relationships between the State and employers’ and workers’ organisation or
the relation between the occupational organisation themselves”. The ILO uses
the expression to denote such matters as “freedom of association and the
protection of the right to organise and the right of collective bargaining;
collective agreements, conciliation and arbitration; the machinery for co-
operation between the authorities and the occupational organisations at various
levels of the economy.”7
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines industrial relations as, “The
concept of industrial relations has been extended to denote the relations of the
State with employers, workers and their organisations. The subject, therefore,
includes individual relations and joint consultation between employers and
work people at their workplace; collective relations between employers and
their organisations and trade unions and the part played by the State in
regulating these relations.”8
Kapoor says that the concept of industrial relations is a developing
and dynamic concept, and does not limit itself merely to a complex of relations
between the union and the management, but also refers to the general web of
relationships normally obtaining between employees a web much more complex
than simple concept of labour capital conflict.9
7. C.B.Kumar, Development of Industrial Relations in India, Orient Longman Ltd., Bombay,1961, p (ix).
8. Encyclopaedia Britannica, London, Vol.12, 1961, p.297.
9. V.P. Singh, Climate for Industrial Relations: A Study of Kanpur Cotton Mills, Allied Publishers,Bombay, 1968.
4
To sum up, industrial relation is the relation in the industry created
by the diverse and complex attitudes and approaches of both management
and workers or employers and employees in connection with the management
of the industry.
1.2 Actors in Industrial Relations
Initially, the management and the unions were considered the two
main actors of industrial relations. However, the State’s policy towards labour
also began to influence industrial relations, particularly after independence,
and, therefore, became the integral force in the industrial relations. It plays a
dual role-one as the initiator of policy and the other as employer, or owner, by
setting up an extremely large public sector. Again, employees have their
organisations. Employers also have their associations. Thus, there are five
parties involved in Industrial relations, namely, labourers, trade unions,
management, employers’ group and the Government.10
The National Commission on Labour clearly mentioned the role of
the actors as “the goal of labour-management relations may be stated as maximum
productivity leading to rapid economic development, adequate understanding
among employers, workers and Government of each others role in industry,
commitment to industry and to the individual way of life on the part of labour
as well as management, sound unionism, efficient institutionalised mechanism
10. A.D.Singh, ‘Determinants of Industrial Relations’, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(1-2), 1971, pp. 63-66.
5
for handling industrial disputes and willingness among parties to co-operate as
partners in the industrial system.”11 The actors in industrial relations are
depicted in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1Actors in Industrial Relations
Employees Trade unions Federation
Employer Associations
State Government
Indian Labour Conference
Legislature To pass laws
Executive To implement laws/
labour policy
Judiciary To adjudicate disputes
1.3 Approaches to Industrial Relations
A large number of systematic attempts have been made by the
industrial sociologists and industrial relations theorists to make theoretical
11. C.B. Gupta, Human Resource Management, Sultan Chand & Sons, New Delhi, 2004.
Standing Labour Committee
International Labour Organisation
6
perspectives for analysing industrial relations. They develop their own views
and ways for explaining the complex phenomenon of industrial relations. The
contributions of psychology, sociology, economics, history, political science,
anthropology, laws, etc. are of much significance in resolving the problem of
industrial relations.12 S.A. Vaidya observes that “an economist tries to interpret
industrial conflict in terms of impersonal market forces and laws of supply
and demand. To a politician, industrial conflict is a war of different ideologies-
perhaps a class war. To a psychologist, industrial conflict means the
conflicting interests, aspirations, goals, motives and perceptions of different
groups of individuals operating within and reacting to a given socio-
economic and political environment”.13 Thus, the approaches of workers
and the management create a wide gulf between the working class and the
employer. A healthy industrial relations scene is possible only by taking suitable
approaches to settle the differences between them.
(i) Systems Approach
The systems approach analyses industrial relations systems as a sub
system of society. The core elements of the systems approach comprise actors,
certain contexts, an ideology which binds the industrial relations system
together and a body of rules created to govern the actors at the workplace. The
significant aspects of the environment in which the actors interact are the
12. Suresh Kumar, Dynamics of Industrial Relations in Contemporary India, AbhishekPublications, Chandigarh, 2002, p.37.
13. S.A. Vaidya, A Psychological Approach to Industrial Relations in B.S.Bhir (Ed.), Dimensionsof Industrial Relations in India, 1970, p.135.
7
technology, market constraints and relative distribution of power relations. The
actors, in an environment context, establish rules for the workplace and the
work community, including those governing the contracts among the actors in
an industrial relations system. The network or web of rules consists of
procedures for establishing rules, the substantive rules and the procedures for
deciding their application to particular situations. The establishment of
procedures and rules is the centre of attention in an industrial relations system.
The ideas and beliefs held by actors, which help bind or integrate the industrial
relations system when consensus is reached. The Dunlop’s system shows a
definite preoccupation with rules and rule making and thus shows a concern for
order and for containment of conflict.
(ii) Pluralist Approach
Job regulation through collective bargaining becomes a
preoccupation. The entire thrust of this approach is oriented to the containment
of conflict through institutionalisation and regulation of the structure and
process of union-management relations. Fox made a distinction between
‘unitary’ and ‘pluralist’ concepts of industrial organisations the former
recognising only one source of legitimate authority whereas the latter concept
accepts the reality of several interest groups invested with power. Fox
recognised the unusual distribution of power within and outside the enterprise
because unlike the pluralist, the radical does not see collective organisation of
employees into trade unions as resorting a balance of power.
8
(iii) Human Relations Approach/Behavioural Approach
These theories were contributed by behavioural scientists who were
concerned with the patterns of human behaviour in work situations. The human
relations approach explains the behaviour of individuals and groups at work
and helps in modifying or utilising such behaviour towards the achievement of
organisational objectives. Their attachment to work and morale can be improved
by providing motives of security and participation. The relationship between
workers and managers can be improved by providing adequate measures of
understanding of personality differences, irrational behaviour arising out of
frustration and poor communication. This approach views industrial relations
as their origin in the differences in the perceptions of management, unions and
workers. These differences arise due to personalities, attitudes, motivation,
leadership, group goals vs. individual goals, etc. are responsible for industrial
conflicts. Human relation approach incorporates all knowledge drawn from
multi-discipline areas like psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and
political science.
(iv) Social Action Approach
This approach is made to analyse the impact of techno-economic
and socio-political changes on various actors and also to analyse the power of
various components of the industrial relations environment - Government,
employees, trade unions and political parties. The social action model points
out the reciprocal nature of the relationship between social structure and
behaviour.
9
(v) Gandhian Approach
Gandhian approach to industrial relations is based on fundamental
principles of trusteeship; there is no scope for conflict of interests between
the capital and the labour. Workers can use non cooperation (satyagraha) to
have their grievances redressed. Gandhiji accepted the worker’s right to go on
strike, but they should exercise this right in a peaceful and non-violent manner.
Workers should resort to strike for a just cause and after the employers fail to
respond to their moral appeals. Gandhi urged the employer to show more
magnanimity and an enlightened attitude towards their employees to ensure
cordial employer-employee relations. He stood against exploitation of
workmen, he asked workers to earn wage increases through corresponding
increase in effort and production. Gandhian concept of industrial relations is
much more relevant today than in the past. The earlier it is implemented the
better it would be for the cause of industrial harmony and steady industrial
growth.
(vi) Giri Approach
According to V.V. Giri, the late President of India, collective
bargaining and mutual negotiations between management and labour should
be used to settle industrial disputes. He suggested that there should be bipartite
machinery in every industry and every unit of the industry to settle differences
from time to time with active encouragement of the Government. Outside
interference should not encroach upon industrial peace. Giri’s stress was on
voluntary efforts of the management and the trade unions to wind up their
10
difference, through voluntary arbitration. He was against compulsory
adjudication which cuts at the very root of the trade union movement. He
advocated collective bargaining for securing industrial peace. The essence of
this approach is internal settlement in preference to compulsion from outside
and voluntary arbitration and collective bargaining rather than compulsory
arbitration.
1.4 Importance of Industrial Relations
Industrial relations play an important role in establishment of
industrial peace, industrial discipline and industrial democracy. Good industrial
relations, not only maintain a cordial atmosphere in the industry, but also
facilitate production and industrial growth.14 It also safeguards the
rights of the workers and the prestige and interests of the management.
Mere technical efficiency, up to date machinery, good plant layout and
dynamic organisation, etc. are not enough to make a business profitable;
good human relations in industry play almost a decisive role in this
respect.15 Economic progress is bound up with industrial peace and industrial
relations are not a matter of employees alone, but a vital concern of the
community. It aims at creating a sense of belonging in the minds of the workers
and a sense of patronising responsibility in the minds of the management. The
strategic importance of industrial relations extends beyond the limited
14. V.P. Michael, Industrial Relations in India and Worker’s Involvement in Management, HimalayaPublishing House, Bombay, 1979, p.3.
15. S.Nagaraju, Industrial Relations System in India, Chugh Publications, Allahabad, 1981, p.4.
11
frontiers of union-management relationship and overlaps the future prospects
of Indian democracy on the one hand, and the basic concepts and assumptions
of economic development on the other.16 Therefore, it has a vital concern of
all the employers, the employees, the Government and the general public as a
whole .17
The development of a nation generally depends upon the overall
development of the industry and the overall development of the industry in
turn depends upon the cordial and harmonious relations between worker and
management. Thus, the goal of an industrial relations system is the maintaining
conflict, achieving harmonious relations, resolving conflicts through peaceful
means and establishing stable social relationships. Good industrial relations
will have a positive effect on industrial production, efficiency, costs, quality,
human satisfaction, discipline, technological and economic progress and
finally on the welfare of the society.
1.5 History of Industrial Relations in India
The origin of the industrial relations can be traced to the origin of
the industry itself. Industrial relations in an organised form started emerging
in India only by the latter half of the 19th century. The original background of
industrial relations in India can be classified under four periods.
16. S.P. Kanaga Ambuselvam, ‘Industrial Relations An Overview’, Indian Journal of IndustrialRelations, 39(4), 1996, p.1107.
17. M.K. Singh, ‘Industrial Relations in Maharastra’, Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. XLIV(1), 1983, p.19.
12
(i) Ancient Period (Pre-Medieval Period)
Ancient India had witnessed cordial socio-economic relations. There
will be a primitive type of socio-economic relations had existed in the various
stages of ancient enterprises like hunting stage, pastoral stage, agricultural and
village economy, hire stage, handicraft stage, barter economy, money economy,
town economy and putting out system. The relations were not strained. Shudras
(workers) placed themselves at the disposal of the superiors. They had implicit
obedience to their employers. Slave system emerged in India and the relation
between slave and his master was only according to commodity theory. But,
the masters were kind hearted to the slaves.
(ii) Medieval Period
Kautilya’s Arthashastra 3rd book provides sufficient evidence for
the absence of the organisational existence of industrial relations in the
beginning of the medieval period. Various guild systems, viz.artisans guild,
merchants guild and cooperative guild, caste system and slave system had
not provided any scope for organised industrial relations. The relations were
not bad during the period, which is evident from the statement of Ghosh &
Santhoshnath, “from the 4th Century B.C. till the latter half of the 10th century
A.D., in spite of the foreign invasion, there is sufficient evidence to indicate
that the relations between the employers and the workers were based on justice
and equity.”18 During the Mauryan period, there were evidences of good
18. P. Ghosh and Santhoshnath, Labour Relations in India, Sudha Publications (P) Ltd,New Delhi,1973, p.5.
13
relations between workers and guild masters and between artisans and workers
themselves. Workers were well regarded and the employer-employee relations
were cordial. The bright industrial environments had ceased to exist during the
Muslim Empire in India. Under the Mughal rule, the industrial environments
were directly controlled by the rulers and relations in the industry were based
on the whims and fancies of the rulers.
(iii) British Period
There was not much scope for industrial development in India
during the early British period. Industries started springing up by the beginning
of the latter half of the 19th century. Their relations had been strained, because
they had to work in a subservient and deplorable condition, grossly exploited
by their contractors. Many disputes had arisen during this period. The Central
Government was forced to pass The Industrial Relations Act of 1860. This
was the beginning of the State intervention in regulating the industrial relations
in the country.
The modern industry in India owes its existence in large measure to
the initiatives of Europeans. The workers were not satisfied with the conditions
in which they worked and the worker-management relations were not cordial.
The workers were working under very deplorable and intolerable working
conditions. They formed unions to discuss the conditions under which they
were working and the wages they were receiving. This forced the Government
14
to act and The Factories Act was passed by the Government in1881 which gave
an impetus to workers’ seeking after redress. The first labour association,
Bombay Mill Hands’ Association, was established in 1890.The First World
War further resulted in the deterioration of working and living conditions of
workers especially because of the greater development of industrial units. The
relations between workers and employers worsened. The industrial peace was
violently disturbed because of strikes and lockouts. The increasing class
consciousness among the working class, influence of Gandhiji on the political
and labour movement and the increasing popularity of Labour Party in England
had tremendous impact on the labour movement in India. This led to a greater
confident unity among the workers. The International Labour Organisation
(ILO), founded in 1919, greatly influenced the labour legislations and industrial
policy in India. The industrial unrest had worsened in Bengal, Bombay, and
Madras presidencies in the 1920’s. This ultimately resulted in the Government
passing a number of legislations for providing social security at the
workplaces. The Workmen Compensation Act of 1923, The Trade Union Act
of 1926, and the Trade Disputes Act of 1929 are some of the laws which were
passed to regulate relations between labour and management.19 The Trade
Dispute Act could not provide the prevention or settlement of disputes. The
Royal Commission on Labour in 1931 pointed out the shortcomings of the
Act. The Government of India Act 1935, which provided provincial autonomy,
generated new hopes and aspirations in the minds of the working class.
19. Suresh Kumar, op.cit., p.28.
15
The Bombay Industrial Dispute Act was passed in the year 1938. The
World War II created more trouble in the industrial field. The Government made
use of the Trade Dispute Act and Bombay Industrial Dispute Act to maintain
peace in the industrial units. The Government evolved certain measures in the
form of Defence of India Rule-81A and the system of holding tripartite labour
conferences comprising workers, employers and Government representative.
All these measures failed and the number of strikes increased manifold. Then
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 was passed to regulate
the terms and conditions of service. Industrial Dispute Act 1947 was passed
for the prevention and settlement of disputes.
(iv) Modern Period (Post-Independence)
Modern industrial relations represent a blending of old systems with
innovation introduced, as society has changed through the ages. Some features
of early system even now persist, while other features are the result of Industrial
Revolution and, therefore, represent sharp breaks with traditionally challenging
problems for the management.20 When India became independent in 1947, the
industrial scene witnessed a considerable amount of chaos and confusion.
Government of India has emerged out as an arbitrator between management
and workers by the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The Industrial Truce
Resolution was shortly adopted, which stressed the need for the maintenance
of industrial peace. The Factories Act of 1948 has also been a strong
20. C.B. Mamoria, Industrial Labour and Industrial Relations in India, Himalaya PublishingHouse, Bombay, Vol. II, 1976, p.41.
16
Government step to improve the industrial relations scene. The Minimum
Wages Act of 1948 and the Industrial Employee Insurance Act of 1948 were
also passed. Still there was not much change in the industrial relations
environment in the country. The Government of India have been contemplating
effective measures for the maintenance of industrial peace, from the First
Five Year Plan onwards.
The code of discipline was introduced in 1958 to restrain parties
from taking unilateral action on industrial matters. Many international events
impacted the course of industrial relations. The National Commission on Labour
(NLC) was appointed in 1966 by the Government to look into the matters and
make recommendations and it submitted its report in 1969.Some of the
recommendations of the NLC were implemented and some others were never
implemented.
The early 1970’s witnessed considerable industrial strife and loss
of a large number of mandays .The Indian Labour Conference (ILC), a tripartite
body to look into industrial relations problems in India, which was active till
1971, did not meet from 1972 to 1976. In the wake of The National Emergency
declared in June 1975, the National Apex Body (NAB) was set up in place of
ILC in consonance with the Government’s 20 Point Programme. These bodies
were abolished and ILC was revived once again in May 1977. From the late
1970’s to early 1980’s the industrial relations in India were characterised by
17
violence. The Government issued an ordinance to ban strikes on 26th July,
1981 to counter strife in the industrial sector. The Essential Services
Maintenance Act (ESMA) empowers the Government to ban strikes, layoffs
and lockouts in what it deems to be ‘essential services’.
The Seventh Five Year Plan underscored reducing inter-union rivalry
and strengthening industrial relations machinery. It also stressed the need for
labour welfare. The Government announced the industrial policy (during the
eight plan period) in 1991 and it brought about a drastic change in the
organisation and working of industrial system of the country.
1.6 Industrial Relations in the Public and Private Enterprises in India
India adopted the path of mixed economy after independence and
began giving emphasis to both public sector (Government controlled and
owned enterprises) and private sector (private enterprises) industries according
to the Industrial Policy announced in April 1948.21 The basic motivation of
the private sector is profit. It cannot be divested of this motivation without
ceasing to be private sector. Public sector on the other hand, has no such
essential motivation. It can and should be motivated to fulfil the objectives of
State policy, and to act as an agency for the change which the State desires.22
21. V.P. Michael, Industrial Relations in India and Workers Involvement in Management, HimalayaPublishing House, 1979, Bombay.
22. Chatterjee, Management of Public Enterprises, Surjeet Publishers, Delhi, 1988.
18
In India, the public sector came into being with the adoption of the
Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948, which laid down that industries of basic
and strategic importance or in the nature of public utility service should be in
the public sector. The public sector was viewed as an instrument for creating
resources for the plan finance and development. The Government policy in the
public sector is to provide maximum satisfaction to employees by improving
their working and living conditions and to ensure that the wage and welfare
amenities in the public sector should in no way be inferior to those in the private
sector.23
Stable industrial relations are the vital prerequisite for industrial
progress. Stability of industrial relations occurs when and where the problem
of management and work force are discussed in a spirit of mutual trust and
confidence without unnecessary delay and friction. Industrial relations in
public undertakings will obviously be different from that of private sector
enterprises. Profit being a major motive for private enterprise, the
management is looked upon as a part and parcel of ownership and traditional
labour-management conflict is inevitable because of their divergent interests.
But, in the case of the private sector, the objectives of management are more
often than not in conflict with the objectives of the workforce. In order to
satisfy the social objectives, the public sector enterprise behaviour is to create
maximum employment opportunities and also to provide enough welfare for
23. A.M. Sarma, Industrial Relations Conceptual & Legal Frame Work, Himalaya PublishingHouse, Bombay, 1984.
19
its workforce in the form of schools, hospitals, transport, colleges, etc.
Government considers this only as a developmental expenditure.
Most of the private sector enterprises being small in size,
communication is much faster and the chief executive carries enough authority
to take independent decisions. The public sector enterprises, on the other hand,
are generally large in size, and due to a larger workforce, the problems of
industrial relations will be more complex and the machinery to resolve them
should also be more sophisticated. In India, there were 187.73 lakh employees
(158.86 lakh male and 28.87 lakh female) in the public sector and 84.32 lakh
employees (63.83 male and 20.49 female employees) in the private sector as
on 31.3.2002.24
1.6.1 Industrial Disputes in India
Industrial disputes are used as an index variable for measuring the
industrial relations situation in the country. An analysis of the number of
industrial disputes in the public and private sector during the last decade (from
1996 to 2005 ) reveals that on an average 801 disputes took place in India
every year, which consist of 181 disputes (23 per cent) in the public sector and
620 disputes(77 per cent) in the private sector. The number of disputes in the
public sector ranges from a low of 49 disputes (minimum percentage, 2004) to
a high of 448 disputes (maximum percentage, 1997). It shows a decline during
the years from 1997 to 2004. Similar to the public sector, the number of
24. Ministry of Labour (DGE&T), Economic Survey, Government of India, 2003-04.
20
disputes in the private sector also shows a declining trend from the year 1997
to 2005. The disputes in the private sector range from a low of 358 disputes
(2005) to a high of 857 disputes (1997). The total number of disputes also
shows a decreasing trend from 1997 to 2005 (Table1.1) .
Table 1.1Number of Industrial Disputes in the Public and Private Sector in India
No. of disputesYear Public sector Private sector Total
1996 381 (33) 785 (67) 11661997 448 (34) 857 (66) 13051998 283 (26) 814 (74) 10971999 165 (18) 762 (82) 9272000 125 (16) 646 (84) 7712001 139 (21) 535 (79) 6742002 63 (11) 516 (89) 5792003 59 (11) 493 (89) 5522004 49 (10) 428 (90) 4772005 100 (22) 358 (78) 458
Period average 181 (23) 620 (77) 801
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
1.6.2 Workers Involved in Industrial Disputes in India
Table 1.2 highlights the workers involved in disputes in the public
and private enterprises in India. The average number of workers involved in
industrial disputes in India during the period 1996 - 2005 was 13.89 lakhs. Of
these, the number of workers involved in the public sector comes to
8.97 lakhs (65 per cent) and that of private sector, comes to 4.92 lakhs
(35 per cent). The workers involved in the public sector range from a low of
3.47 lakhs (2002) to a high of 16.85 lakh (2005).Meanwhile, in the private
sector, it ranges from a low of 2.60 lakh (2001) to a high of 7.58 lakh (1999).
21
Table1.2Number of Workers Involved in Industrial Disputes in India
(in 000’s)Workers involved
Year Public sector Private sector Total
1996 607 (65) 333 (35) 9401997 618 (63) 363 (37) 9811998 901 (70) 388 (30) 12891999 553 (42) 758 (58) 13112000 1147(81) 271 (19) 14182001 428 (62) 260 (38) 6882002 347 (32) 733 (68) 10802003 1099 (61) 717 (39) 18162004 1590 (77) 482(23) 20722005 1685(73) 610 (27) 2295
Period average 897(65) 492 (35) 1389
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
1.6.3 Number of Mandays Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in India
Table 1.3 shows the mandays lost due to industrial disputes in the
public and private sector in India from 1996 to 2005. The average number of
mandays lost in the public sector was 38.12 lakh (16 per cent), whereas in the
private sector, it was 204.49 lakh (84 per cent). The lowest number of mandays
lost (8.04 lakh mandays, i.e., three per cent) in the public sector was in the year
2002 and heavy loss occurred during the year 2000 (106.81 lakh i.e. 37 per
cent). Meanwhile, the number of mandays lost in the private sector ranges from
a low of 144.86 lakh (66 per cent) to a high of 257.82 lakh
(97 per cent) during the period 1996-2005.
22
Table 1.3Number of Mandays Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in India
(in 000’s)Mandays lost
Year Public sector Private sector Total
1996 3151(16) 17134 (84) 202851997 2181 (13) 14791 (87) 169721998 7576 (34) 14486 (66) 220621999 1176 (4) 25611 (96) 267872000 10681(37) 18082 (63) 287632001 2024 (9) 21743 (91) 237672002 804 (3) 25752 (97) 265862003 6856 (23) 23400 (77) 302562004 1806 (8) 22061 (92) 238672005 1867 (8) 21398 (92) 23265
Period average 3812 (16) 20449 (84) 24261
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.Notes: Figures in brackets show percentage.
1.6.4 Industrial Disputes by Causes in India
Industrial disputes are the result of clashes in the goals and
aspirations of the workers and the employers, variation in the causes of industrial
disputes will indicate the changes in the pattern of workers’ goals and
aspirations.25 Table 1.4 and 1.5 highlights the important causes of disputes in
the public and private enterprises in India from 1996 to 2005.
In the public sector, wages and allowances (28.8 per cent), personnel
and retrenchment (18.2 per cent) and indiscipline and violence were the three
important causes of disputes. Safety measures and charter of demands also affect
the industrial dispute situation in the public sector (Table 1.4).Meanwhile, in
the private sector, indiscipline and violence (27.8 per cent), wages and
allowances (20.7 per cent) and personnel and retrenchment were the major
25. G.P Sinha and Sinha P.R.N, Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation in India, Oxford andIBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1977, pp.237-238.
23
causes of disputes. Charter of demands and bonus also influence the industrial
dispute position in the private sector.
Table 1.4Industrial Disputes by Causes (Public Sector) in India
Causes of 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Averagedisputes
Wagesand allowances 30.7 24.6 23.7 29.7 24.8 32.4 11.1 37.3 44.9 N.A. 28.8Personnel &retrenchment 19.4 20.1 19.8 17.0 14.4 10.1 35.0 13.6 14.3 N.A. 18.2Indiscipline &violence 15.2 18.7 20.4 16.4 12.8 15.8 4 .8 11.9 12.3 N.A. 14.3Leave and hoursof work 1 .3 4 .2 3 .2 1 .2 0 .8 0 0 0 2 .0 N.A. 1 .4Bonus 2 .4 1 .6 4 .6 1 .2 1 .6 2 .2 6 .3 8 .4 0 N.A. 3 .1Non-implementationof Agreements& awards 1 .8 0 .7 1 .1 1 .8 0 .8 7 .2 6 .3 0 0 N.A. 2 .2Charter ofdemands 1 .6 2 .9 4 .2 3 .6 12.0 5 .0 6 .3 8 .4 10.2 N.A. 6 .0Betterment ofamenities 3 .9 7 .1 3 .2 3 .6 4 .8 2 .8 3 .2 1 .7 0 N.A. 3 .4Safety measures 8 .7 7 .6 3 .5 12.7 8 .8 3 .6 7 .9 6 .8 12.3 N.A. 8 .0Others 14.7 12.5 15.6 11.0 8 .8 8 .7 14.3 10.2 2 .0 N.A. 10.9Not known 0 .3 0 0 .7 1 .8 10.4 12.2 4 .8 1 .7 2 .0 N.A. 3 .7Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 N.A. 1 0 0
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.Note: Figures in percentage.
Table 1.5Industrial Disputes by Causes (Private Sector) in India
Causes of 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Averagedisputes
Wagesand allowances 21.3 22.8 20.4 20.2 19.7 22.6 21.5 16.6 21.5 N.A. 20.7Personnel &retrenchment 19.0 20.8 15.6 13.9 12.1 12.9 13.2 12.4 12.6 N.A. 14.7Indiscipline &violence 19.6 20.4 21.4 23.1 28.0 25.1 32.5 37.4 42.3 N.A. 27.8Leave and hoursof work 2 .0 1 .4 0 .6 0 .9 0 .9 0 .2 0 .6 1 .0 0.2 N.A. 0.9Bonus 11.1 12.3 13.5 10.7 9 .9 7 .7 6 .4 5 .9 3 .7 N.A. 9 .1Nonimplementationof agreementsand awards 5 .4 4 .7 3 .6 4 .3 3 .4 2 .8 2 .5 1 .2 1 .2 N.A. 3 .2Charter ofdemands 8 .3 6 .4 10.4 13.4 13.0 11.4 10.5 8 .1 4 .9 N.A. 9 .6Betterment ofamenities 0 .8 0 .2 0 .4 0 .7 0 .8 0 .4 0 0 0 .2 N.A. 0 .4Safety measures 0 0 0 .4 0 .1 0 .5 0 .4 1 .0 0 .2 1 .2 N.A. 0 .4Others 6 .6 6 .7 7 .9 6 .4 7 .7 9 .0 6 .2 8 .9 6 .8 N.A. 7 .3Not known 5 .9 4 .3 5 .8 6 .3 4 .0 7 .5 5 .6 8 .3 5 .4 N.A. 5 .9Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 N.A. 1 0 0
Source: Indian Labour Year Book (various issues), Labour Bureau, Shimla.Note: Figures in percentage.
24
1.7 Industrial Relations in the Public and Private Enterprises in Kerala
There is no difference in the industrial relations in the public and
private enterprises in Kerala. In Kerala, both public and private sector co-exist
for the development of the State. Kerala has the largest number of State level
public enterprises (113 out of 1071) in India. The employment in the public
sector as on 31st March 2003 was 6.19 lakhs (4.29 male and 1.9 female) and
that of the private sector it was 5.30 lakhs (2.65 male and 2.65 female).
Kerala’s potential for industrial development is unquestionable. But,
constraints such as fragile production base, poor industry linkages, labour
militancy, high wage cost and low productivity are considered as factors
preventing its fullest exploitation.The industrial relations in Kerala were better
till 1960’s, compared with other States.26 The trade union solidarity, democratic
industrial relations machinery and practices and a positive approach by the State
were the contributing factors.However the situation changed dramatically
thereafter, due to the unhealthy trends emerging in the trade union
movement.Kerala has the largest number of trade unions.But the trade union
alone cannot be responsible for any deterioration in industrial relations.27
There has been a notable improvement in labour relations in Kerala
during the 1980’s and 1990’s, which is evident in the steady decline in the
intensity of labour disputes in the State and in the decreasing differences in the
26. K. Ramachandran Nair, Industrial Relations in Kerala, Sterling Publications, New Delhi,1973.
27. K. Ramachandran Nair, Management-Labour Interference, Kerala Calling, 1999, pp.9-16.
25
intensity of disputes between State and the national average during these
decades.28
1.7.1 Industrial Disputes in Kerala
Table 1.6 shows the industrial disputes in the public and private
enterprises in Kerala from 1996 to 2005.There were on an average 35 disputes
in a year, which include one dispute in the public sector and 34 disputes in the
private sector. Again, the number of disputes in the private sector is much higher
than that of the number of disputes in the public sector in all the years under
study. During the year 1996, there were 45 disputes in Kerala (2 disputes in the
public sector and 43 disputes in the private sector) but it rose to 50 during
1999.Meanwhile, during 2005 there were only 14 disputes, 2 in the public sector
and 12 in the private sector.
Table 1.6 Number of Industrial Disputes in the Public and Private Sector in Kerala
Workers involvedYear Public sector Private sector Total
1996 2 (4.5) 43 (95.5) 451997 1 (2.4) 41 (97.6) 421998 0 (0) 34 (100) 341999 1 (2) 49 (98) 502000 1 (2.5) 39 (97.5) 402001 1 (4) 24 (96) 252002 2 (8) 24 (92) 262003 2 (5.3) 36 (94.7) 382004 1 (2.9) 34 (97.1) 352005 2 (14.3) 12 (85.7) 14
Period average 1.3 (3.2) 33.6 (96.8) 34.9
Source: Office of the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
28. Jayan Jose Thomas, ‘Labour and Industrialisation in Kerala,’ Indian Journal of LabourEconomics, Vol.46, No.4, 2003.
26
1.7.2 Number of Workers Involved in Disputes in Kerala
Table 1.7 shows the workers involved in disputes in the public and
private enterprises in Kerala.The average number of workers involved in
industrial disputes in Kerala during the period 1996-2005 was 156851. Of
these, the number of workers involved in disputes in the public sector comes
to 1025 (0.7 per cent) and that of private sector, it comes to 155826
(99.3 per cent). The workers involved in the public sector range from a low of
zero (1998) to a high of 2140(2005).Meanwhile, in the private sector it ranges
from a low of 12070 (1998)to a high of 451310 (2005).
Table 1.7Number of Workers Involved in Industrial Disputes in Kerala
Workers involvedYear Public sector Private sector Total
1996 1590 (4.6) 32790 (95.4) 343801997 410 (0.5) 74770 (99.5) 751801998 0 (0) 12070 (100) 120701999 1530 (0.9) 178730 (99.1) 1802602000 1790 (0.9) 204800 (99.1) 2065902001 390 (1.1) 36140 (98.9) 365302002 1360 (0.3) 414560 (99.7) 4159202003 800 (1.4) 55950 (98.6) 567502004 240 (0.3) 97140 (99.7) 973802005 2140 (0.5) 451310 (99.5) 453450
Period average 1025 (0.7) 155826 (99.3) 156851
Source: Office of the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
1.7.3 Mandays Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in Kerala
Table 1.8 highlights the mandays lost due to disputes in the public
and private enterprises in Kerala during the period 1996- 2005. There were on
an average 2639000 mandays lost in Kerala, which include 23850 mandays
27
lost in the public sector and 2615150 mandays lost in the private sector. During
1996 the total number of mandays lost due to disputes was 1991430. The highest
number of mandays lost due to disputes was reported during 2002, i.e.8083636.
But during 2005, the number of mandays lost due to disputes in the public and
private sector comes to 5105976.
Table 1.8Number of Mandays Lost Due to Industrial Disputes in Kerala
Mandays lostYear Public sector Private sector Total
1996 50908 (2.6) 1940522 (97.4) 19914301997 4217 (0.5) 952956 (99.5) 9571731998 0 (0) 758407 (100) 7584071999 1173 (0.1) 2368091 (99.9) 23692642000 14300 (1) 1434317 (99) 14486172001 2629 (0.2) 1643508 (99.8) 16461372002 96804 (1.2) 7986832 (98.8) 80836362003 18665 (1) 1985960 (99) 20046252004 2491 (0.1) 2022245 (99.9) 20247362005 47317 (0.9) 5058659 (99.1) 5105976
Period average 23850 (0.9) 2615150 (99.1) 2639000
Source : Office of the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.Note: Figures in brackets show percentage.
1.7.4 Industrial Disputes by Causes in Kerala
Both economic and non-economic causes were accounted for
industrial disputes in Kerala. Industrial disputes due to economic causes, viz.
wages and allowances, bonus, personnel and retrenchment accounted for
between 31 and 45 per cent of the disputes during 1996 to 2005. But as against
it, disputes due to other causes ranged between 55 and 69 per cent during the
same period (Table1.9).
28
Table 1.9Industrial Disputes by Causes in Kerala
Causes of 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Averagedisputes
Wagesand allowances 20.15 23.67 19.06 21.26 21.09 22.17 24.98 19.24 24.53 20.00 21.62Dismisal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.03 28.50 13.82 6.84Bonus 12.31 15.96 9.87 11.55 11.00 15.48 15.15 10.34 11.35 10.59 12.36Closure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.31 0.65 0.78 0.27Leave 0.47 0.23 1.17 1.09 0.58 0.42 0.23 0.62 0.02 0.03 0.49Hour of work 0.54 0.59 1.17 0.82 0.47 0.15 0.51 1.13 0 0.03 0.54Denial ofEmployment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.46 2.65Retrenchment 3.85 4.93 4.73 4.54 3.52 3.80 3.97 2.19 1.24 1.27 3.40Strike/Lockout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.93 0.09Others 62.68 54.62 64.00 60.74 63.34 57.98 55.16 39.14 33.71 26.09 51.74Total 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Source: Office of the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.
CONCLUSION
1. The number of disputes (23 per cent) and mandays lost (16 per cent) were
lower in the public sector than in the private sector in India. But the workers
involved in disputes in the public sector in India were much higher
(65 per cent) than that in the private sector (35 per cent).Wages and
allowances, personnel and retrenchment, indiscipline and violence were
the three major causes of disputes in the public sector. In the private sector,
indiscipline and violence cause more disputes in India. Wages and
allowances, personnel and retrenchment also influence the industrial
dispute position in this sector.
2. The number of disputes, workers involved and mandays lost were much
lower in the public sector, compared to the private sector in Kerala. Wages
and allowances and bonus were the major causes of disputes in Kerala.
Dismissal and denial of employment together constitute 40.28 per cent
of the causes in the year 2005.