26-10-2016, 04:51 PM
1461496186-labourlaw4thsem.pdf (Size: 639.46 KB / Downloads: 4)
INTRODUCTION
A grievance can be defined as the sense of resentment or antipathy typically arising out of a
feeling of being wronged and as an expression of discontent made to an organization in
relation to the services rendered by it and related to its products, where a certain standard is
explicitly or implicitly expected. A grievance is thus any sort of dissatisfaction, which needs
to be redressed. In the context of this project thus it can be said that a grievance is any
discontent which is harboured by an individual employee with any aspect of the organization
wherein he is employed. It can be real or imaginary, legitimate or ridiculous, rated or
unvoiced, written or oral, it must however, find expression in some form of the other in order
to facilitate the smooth functioning of the individual in the organization and of the
organization as a whole. Discontent or dissatisfaction per se cannot be said to be a grievance.
Such discontent initially finds expression in the form of a complaint. When a complaint of
this nature remains unattended to and the employee concerned feels a sense of lack of justice
and fairness, the dissatisfaction grows and assumes the status of grievance. Usually
grievances are indicative of problems stemming from interpretation of perceived nonfulfillment
of an employees expectation from the organization. This understanding of the
ambit of a grievance is also in accordance with the definition set out in the ILO Examination
of Grievances recommendations which states.
“The grounds for grievance may be any measure or situation which concerns the relations
between the employer and worker or which affects or may affect the conditions of
employment of one or several workers in the undertaking when that measure or situation
appears contrary to provisions of an applicable collective agreement or of an individual of
employment, to works rules, to laws or regulations or to the custom or usage of the
occupation, branch of economic activity or country, regard being had to the principles of
good faith.”
In the year 1998, the Indian Government ratified Article 1 of the Convention 122 of the
International Labour Organisation. Article 1 of the Convention it can thus be concluded
confers upon workers the right to have redressal mechanisms to their grievances and thus the
Indian Government is now by way of ratifying the Article 1 of the Convention 122 obligated
to look into such interests if the workers . Having recognized the existence of a right to
redressal of grievances, it is necessary for the purpose of this project to look into the reason
behind why workers may have grievances as well as the development of grievance redressal
mechanisms over time and finally conclude on the need for an individual grievance redressal
mechanism under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Grievances may occur for a number of reasons: The primary reason for a large number of
individual grievances can be attributed to discontent with regard to wage fixation and wage
revision, leading employees to feel that they are underpaid in comparison to their peer.
Another factor contributing to a large number of grievances amongst individuals is due to
inferior working conditions and restrictive practices towards production efficiency.
Grievances amongst workers may also arise due to a perceived notion of a biased attitude
harboured by the employers towards the employee. Grievances may also arise due to the
inability of a worker to adjust in the work environment and efficiently work with his
coworkers. Grievances amongst workers may also arise because of certain other factors such
as issues relating to violations in respect of promotions, transfer procedures, fines and
granting leave.
Grievance Redressal typically covers the following types of complaints:
Service Unavailability
Non-Delivery against Commitment
Excessive Delays
Injustice concerns (such as over race, caste, sex)
Staff Misbehaviour
Malpractice
Wider definition of grievance redressal covers:
Malfunctions under Warranty coverage
Product Support issues
Citizen Vigilance reports
Employee Disputes
The 2010 Amendment provided for key changes in the Industrial dispute Act. It led to the
formation of Section 9-C
The new Section 9© provides –
i)Composition of the Grievance Redressal Committee.
ii)Fixes a thirty day time limit for redressal of the grievance.
iii)Provides for appeal to the employer by the workman aggrieved by the decision of the committee.
GRIEVANCE: ITS MEANING AND INCEPTION
At present, the legal system in India is equipped with three legislations for the purpose of
dealing with grievances of employees working in industries. These legislations are namely
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which requires that every
industrial establishment employing more than a hundred workers should frame
standing orders, which should contain primarily a provision for the redressal of
grievances of workers against unfair treatment and wrongful actions by the employer
or the supervisor at that establishment.
The Factories Act, 1948, which mandates the appointment of a Welfare Officer in
every factory ordinarily employing five hundred or more workers. These Welfare
officers are obligated to attend to and resolve the complaints and grievances of
workers and implementation of the existing labour legislation.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, amended in 1965 which provides for the redressal
of individual disputes relating to discharge, dismissal or retrenchment.
The existing labour legislations however are not being implemented properly by employers
and the grievances of workers are largely remaining unresolved. Welfare officers entrusted
with the task of looking after the interests of workers have also shirked their responsibilities
in the organized industry sector. It is unfortunate thus that the public sector, which should set
up an example for the private sector, has not been implementing Labour laws properly. In
India, a Model Grievance Procedure was adopted by the Indian Labour Conference in its 16th
session held in 1958 and presently the Indian industries are adopting either the Model
Grievance Procedure or procedures formulated by themselves with modifications in the
Model Grievance Procedure thus yielding a majority of grievance redressal procedures
voluntary in nature.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intends to remedy this very inconsistency which has
spawned as result of the neglect of the employers towards existing labour legislations and it
seeks to achieve its objective through the intervention of the State in industrial disputes. The
concern of state in matters relating to labour is a product of its obligations to protect the
interest of industrial community, while at the same time fostering economic growth in almost
all countries. The state has assumed powers to regulate labour relations in some degree or the
other. In some, it has taken the form of laying down bare rules or observance by employers
and workers; in others, the rules cover a wider area of these rules.
As far as the evolution of grievance settlement procedures is concerned, from the Indian
perspective state intervention in labour matters can be traced back to the enactment of the
Employers and Workmen’s Disputes Act 1860 which envisaged the swift disposal of disputes
relating to the wages of workmen employed in the railways, and other public works, by
Magistrates. The Third Five Year Plan formulated a Code of Discipline for industries which
was voluntarily accepted by the management. It facilitated the industrial disputes to be
mutually settled and litigation to be avoided as far as possible. The third Five year plan also
brought about the establishment of Works Committees and workers organizations.
The notion of incorporating alternative dispute mechanisms to solve labour disputes can be
traced to have had its inception from the Third Five Year Plan. One of the mechanisms for
dispute settlement as envisaged in this plan is the proposed establishment of ‘Grievance
Settlement Authorities’ to resolve disputes between individual workers and their employers.
In order to address the issue for the Need for Individual Grievance Settlement further, it must
be noted that there are two types of Industrial Disputes in particular, the first being interest
disputes and the second being rights disputes.
Interest disputes are mostly with regard to determination of a revised wage level and other
conditions of employment.
Rights disputes however relate to the interpretation and application of existing standards of
employment and usually involve an individual worker or group of workers.
As regards rights dispute constitutes a claim wherein it is contested that the workmen have
not been subjected to the terms in accordance with the rules of employment and individual
contracts of employment. Such disputes are also described as grievance disputes. The term
grievances as understood by want of such disputes is implied to be within the ambit of any
dispute regarding retrenchment ,dismissal, payment of wages, working time, overtime,
demotion , promotion, transfer, seniority, job classification, work rules and fulfillment of
obligation relating to safety and health laid down in an agreement. The definition of
Industrial Dispute as given in the Act has a wide coverage. All disputes relating to
employment or non- employment, or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour
are contained within the definition envisaged in the Act.
Settlement of disputes can be understood to mean an agreement which is arrived at in the
course of conciliation proceedings and includes a written agreement between employer and
workmen arrived at otherwise than in course conciliation proceedings where such agreement
has been signed by the parties there to in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy
thereof has been sent to the officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government
and the conciliation officer.
The definition envisages two categories of settlement.
Settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation and
Settlement arrived at privately or otherwise than in the course of conciliation
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MACHINERY
The Industrial Disputes Act was enacted with the objective of ensuring a swift and effective
settlement procedure for industrial disputes. As had been Stated by Justice Krishna Iyer, the
notion of a welfare state could be considered to mean an end to the exploitation of workers
and the inception of peace and harmony in the industrial growth of the state.16 The primary
function of the Industrial Disputes Act as contained in a number of cases at its early stages
was to facilitate the idea of ‘collective bargaining’. Collective bargaining can be defined to
be the act by way of which employees organize collectively and bargain with employers
regarding certain rights and liabilities within the employer employee relationship. It is thus
the coming together of workers to negotiate their employment and other related matters. It
must also be seen that Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes no reference
to individual employees but restricts itself only to ‘workmen’ a such. Thus it still remains
unclear whether the nature of disputes as envisaged could involve individual grievances
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Ruston and Hornsby v. TB Kada , the Court held
that even still disputes concerning individuals could be referred if they were dismissed from
their employment or their services terminated. However, it is settled that no mode of
grievance redressal and settlement existed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It was only in 1965 that Section 2-A was introduced to the Act that stated that when an
employer is discharged, dismissed or his services are otherwise terminated any dispute or
discontentment between that workman and his employer shall be deemed to be an industrial
dispute in spite of the fact that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute. This Section implies that an individual’s grievance not related to a dismissal or
discharge will not constitute an industrial dispute. For example, a worker’s grievance that his
seniority was overlooked at the time of a promotion decision in comparison to one of his
coworkers will not constitute an industrial dispute, but may be redressed through a grievance
redressal mechanism setup within the establishment. Paul Lansing and Sarosh Kuruvilla are
of the opinion that including selective individual disputes as industrial disputes protects the
individual worker from being victimized and losing his source of livelihood in the process,
especially where he was not a member of the union. The first instance however of a legal
mechanism of grievance settlement can be traced back to the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act of 1946 that envisaged for the settlement of individual grievances that
any employee may have in the industry. With this Act, the right and privilege of the
employees of knowing their conditions of work and effectively and individually demanding
for them had become the accepted law of the land. However, according to SB Sinha J., the
Act did not receive enough attention and a lax in its enforcement rendered it ineffective. It
has to be noted thus that the Industrial Disputes Act has no mechanism for grievance
redressal and settlement even though the International Labour Organisation Conventions have
made it mandatory that such provisions be made in order to ensure efficiency in the industry
facilitate an efficacious work environment.
The subsequent stage of legal development was made in 1982 when an amendment was
proposed to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to include a mechanism for grievance
settlement. As a result of the proposal, Section 9-C was added to the Act in order to create a
procedure of reference of certain industrial disputes to grievance authorities. This provision
however has not yet been notified and is thus not enforceable despite being passed for over
25 years.
The main features of this procedure are:
It is compulsory for industrial establishment having more than 50 workmen to have a
Grievance settlement authority.
The dispute must be referred in a manner as may be prescribed.These bodies are made up of
representatives of workers and employers.
No reference can be made under the Act to Boards of Concilliation, LabourCourts or
Industrial Tribunals, unless the dispute has first been the subject of a decision of a Grievance
Settlement Authority
Setting up of Grievance Settlement Authorities and reference of certain individual disputes to
such authorities.-
(1) The employer in relation to every industrial establishment in which fifty or more
workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve
months, shall provide for, in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this
Act, a Grievance Settlement Authority for the settlement of industrial disputes
connected with an individual workman employed in the establishment.
(2) Where an industrial dispute connected with an individual workman arises in an
establishment referred to in sub- section (1), a workman or any trade union of
workmen of which such workman is a member, refer, in such manner as may be
prescribed such dispute to the Grievance Settlement Authority provided for by the
employer under that sub- section for settlement.
(3) The Grievance Settlement Authority referred to in sub- section (1) shall follow
such procedure and complete its proceedings within such period as may be prescribed.
(4) No reference shall be made under Chapter III with respect to any dispute referred
to in this section unless such dispute has been referred to the Grievance Settlement
Authority concerned and the decision of the Grievance Settlement Authority is not
acceptable to any of the parties to the dispute.
The procedure of the functioning of a Grievance Redressal Committee is as under:
i. The Committee shall receive the application/complaint from employees as well as
public and acknowledge the receipt within 3 days.
ii. The Committee shall study, analysis and submit its recommendations to the Director
within 15 days from the date of receipt of application/complaint.
iii. The recommendation submitted by the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be
viewed and considered by Director. Director may consult Secretary if required before
taking a decision and disposing of the Grievance/Petition.
iv. The grievance needs to be redressed and disposed off as soon as possible however not
exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt, in the case of employee and 60 days in the
case of public.
v. However under circumstance a policy decision is warranted, the subject matter may
be referred by Director to Chairman Governing Body with request for direction and
guidance.
vi. The Institute is in the process of redesigning its websites and shall incorporate the
directives as received. The centralized public grievance redress and monitoring
system (CPGRAMS) shall soon thereafter be implemented as desired.
PROVISIONS FOR GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MACHINERY
A new chapter II-B has been substituted by the Industrial Disputes(Amendment) Act, 2010
whereby present section 9-C has been substituted and enforced with effect from 15th
September 2010.
Section 9-C. Setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery- (1) Every industrial
establishment employing twenty or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance
Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances.
(2) The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist of equal number of members from
employers and employees.
(3) The Chairperson of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be selected from the
employer and from among the workmen alternatively on rotation basis every year
(4) The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not be more
than six:
Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable, one woman member if the Grievance
Redressal Committee has two members and in case the number of members are more than
two, the number of women members may be increased proportionately.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the setting up of Grievance Redressal
Committee shall not affect the right of the workman to raise industrial dispute on the same
matter under the provisions of this Act.
(6) The Grievance Redressal Committee may complete its proceedings within thirty days on
receipt of written application by or on behalf of the aggrieved party.
(7) The workman who is aggrieved of the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee
may prefer an appeal to the employer against the decision of Grievance Redressal Committee
and the employer shall, within one month from the date of receipt of such appeal, dispose off
the same and send a copy of his decision to the workman concerned
(8) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the workman for whom there is an
established Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the establishment concerned.
NEED FOR GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MACHINERY
In 2002, the Second National Labour Commission submitted its report to the Indian
Government and was of the opinion that as regards grievance redressal, it is crucial to note
that after a period of tenty years, the issue again came to the forefront in spite of the
Commission having strongly suggested that the setting up of a Grievance settlement authority
is essential for the purposes of resolving the issue. As per the report of the Commission,
every establishment to which the general law of employment applies which includes all
establishments with twenty or more workers, a Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of
an equal number of workers and employers not exceeding ten members or lesser than two
members must be constituted depending on the employment size of the establishment.
It was prescribed by the commission that one member of the committee should be designated
as the Chairman and another member as the Vice Chairman and a system must be enforced
whereby one of the two is from the management, and the other is a representative chosen
unanimously by the employees. The Commission suggested that the Grievance Redressal
Committee shall be the body to which all grievances of a worker in respect of his
employment, including his non employment will be referred to for the purpose of being
resolved within a limited period of time. In the instance of the aggrieved worker not being
satisfied with the decision of the committee, such employee shall be free to seek resolution
through arbitration of the dispute by an arbitrator, or seek adjudication of the dispute by the
labour court. The decision of the labour court or arbitrator however it was recommended by
the Commission would be final in the matter. The Commission opined that with regard to
matters pertaining to individual workers in relation to disputes involving termination of
employment or transfer or any other matter should be resolved by recourse to the grievance
redressal committee and then only to other dispute settlement mechanisms like Arbitration,
Conciliation and the Labour Courts.
CONCLUSION
It is evident as has been seen through the course of this project that the Indian Courts are
increasingly recognizing the role of the individual employee within the ambit of labour
disputes. This is an obvious and apparent digression from the traditional form of dispute
resolution wherein procedures of the likes of collective bargaining were employed and the
interests of individual employees weren’t emphasized and is an apparent move towards
furthering the notions of social justice and social equity as have been enshrined in the
Constitution of India and The Labour Legislations.37 It is imperative however that for these
ideals to be truly empowered and enforceable, Section 9-C of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 essentially be brought into force. This would not only ensure judicial sanction but also
provide statutory empowerment to the rights of the individuals tfor the purpose pf bringing
their disputes to a forum with the objective of having them resolved.37 The Central and State
Governments as well as various organizations under them have set up grievance redressal
mechanisms to look into the complaints of citizens. Besides, there are other institutional
mechanisms like the CVC, and the Lokayuktas which have the mandate to look into the
complaints of corruption and abuse of office by public servants. Many organizations, for
example, the Reserve Bank of India, have set up Ombudsman to look into grievances. Thus,
the grievance redressal mechanism is an integral part of any governance system. Today, with
increased awareness levels, the aspirations of individuals have increased as have their
demand for prompt and effective resolution of their grievances.The traditional Grievance
Redressal System is mechanical reactive and formal. Grievances however are human
problems with lot of emotions and sentiments attached with them and thus require informal,
proactive procedure of resolution in order to be effective.