Industrial Relations Code , 2020

Mechanisms For Resolving Industrial Dispute

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, lists a three main mechanisms for resolving industrial disputes: preventive forums, conciliation, and adjudication. Preventive forums, like the Grievance Redressal Committee and Works Committee, aim for internal dispute resolution by workers and employers. Conciliation involves a third-party mediator who tend to listen to the grieviances of the Third party , while adjudication is the process of resolving disputes through courts or tribunals and other legal premises This also helps to achieve right to life and Liberty to both the workers and their employers.
By Abigail Antony from Lovely Proffessional University.

Industrial Relations Code 2019

Mechanisms For Resolving Industrial Disputes Efficiently

Some of these Dispute Resolution Mechanisms may include the following:

• Bi-partite Fora: The concerned authority may want workers in established employments with 100 or more workers to form a Works Committee. The Committee will help to solve both internal and external disputes between workers and employers. It will involve representatives of workers and employers of both parties. The number of representatives of workers cannot be less than the number of representatives of employers. Further, every establishment with 20 or more workers must include a Grievance Redressal Committee. The Committee will resolve disputes related to grievances of individual workers on unemployment, terms of their work or conditions of service. It consists of equality in the representation of the employer and workers up to a maximum of ten workers.
   
• Arbitration: The act permits industrial disputes to be inquired into by arbitration if there is an agreement between both parties. Industrial disputes or conflicts may include disputes such as:
  • Employers and employers
  • Employers and workers
  • Workers and workers
  on issues like employment or non-employment, terms of employment, conditions of labour, or disputes between an employer and worker on discharge, dismissal, or retrenchment.
   
• Resolution of Industrial Disputes: The central or state governments may appoint conciliation officers to mediate and promote settlement of industrial disputes. These officers will investigate the dispute and hold conciliation proceedings to arrive at a fair and admissible settlement suitable to both parties. If no settlement is achieved, then one of the parties can make an application to an Industrial Tribunal for further procedure.
   
• Industrial Tribunals: Industrial Tribunals are established for settling industrial disputes. An Industrial Tribunal consists of two members:
  • A Judicial Member, who is a High Court Judge or has served as a District Judge or an Additional District Judge for a minimum of three years
  • An Administrative Member, who has over 20 years of experience in the fields of economics, business, law, and labour relations
     
• National Industrial Tribunals: The central government may involve National Industrial Tribunals for settlement of industrial disputes which:
  • Include issues of national importance
  • Have an impact in industrial establishments situated in many states
  Members of the National Tribunal include:
  • A Judicial Member, who has been a High Court Judge
  • An Administrative Member, who has been a Secretary in the central government

 
The award of the Tribunal is enforced in 30 days.  However, the government may decide to differ the enforcement of an award in certain cases on public grounds (affecting national economy or social justice).  

Mechanisms For Resolving Industrial Disputes Under Industrial Relations Code 2020

• Conciliation: Conciliation is a process where the parties involved in a dispute try to resolve their differences through negotiations. This process is facilitated by a conciliator, who is a neutral third party meaning doesn't take sides with any of the parties and is said to be appointed by the government. The conciliator helps the parties to outline the issues in dispute and encourages negotiations to resolve the dispute. Conciliation is a well-known method of dispute resolution in India, as it is time-saving and less cost-effective way to resolve disputes.
• Arbitration: Arbitration is a process where a third party, known as an arbitrator, listens to the dispute and makes a binding decision that will suit both the parties. Arbitration is a well-known method of dispute resolution in India, as it is a less time-consuming and less costly way to resolve disputes. The arbitrator is appointed by the parties involved in the dispute, and the decision of the arbitrator is suitable and binds both the parties.
• Adjudication: Adjudication is a process where a labour court or tribunal hears the dispute and makes a binding decision. Adjudication is a formal process, where the parties involved in the dispute present their cases before a labour court or tribunal. The labour court or tribunal hears the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and makes a binding decision.
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A grievance redressal mechanism is a process where workers can raise their grievances and have them addressed by the employer or the government, especially when it is a public sector or institution. This process is given under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and is a well-known method of dispute resolution in India. The grievance redressal mechanism provides a quick and cost-effective way to resolve disputes and helps to maintain industrial harmony.
• Tripartite Negotiations: Tripartite negotiations is a process where the government, employers, and workers negotiate to resolve disputes. This process is facilitated by the government, and is a popular method of dispute resolution in India. Tripartite negotiations help to ensure industrial harmony, as it provides a platform for the parties involved in the dispute to negotiate and resolve their differences.
• Labour Courts and Tribunals: Labour courts and tribunals are specialized courts that hear industrial disputes. These courts and tribunals are established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The main objective for the establishment is to hear and decide industrial disputes. Labour courts and tribunals provide a quick and cost-effective way to resolve disputes, and help to maintain industrial harmony. However, studies have shown that the existing framework has several limitations, including delays, biases, and lack of transparency, as it may be suitable to the few.

The conciliation
In this process is often said to be ineffective, and the arbitration process is often biased towards employers. The adjudication process is often slow and expensive, making it inaccessible to workers due to their limitations. The new labour reforms, introduced in 2020, aim to simplify the dispute resolution process, reduce the number of labour laws, and introduce a more easy labour market.

The reforms have introduced important changes to the industrial dispute resolution mechanisms in India, including the establishment of a single labour act, the simplification of the dispute resolution process, and the introduction of a more flexible labour market.

Analysis of the Impact of the New Labour Reforms on Industrial Dispute Resolution in the Automotive Industry
The new labour reforms have a significant impact on industrial dispute resolution in the automotive industry in India. The reforms have introduced a more flexible labour market, which has made it easier for employers to hire and fire workers at wil depending on their own terms of interest.

This led to a decline in worker rights and an increase in labour market flexibility. The reforms have also introduced a new grievance redressal mechanism, which has been criticized for being ineffective and favourable to only employers. The mechanism has been slow to respond to worker grievances, leading to a decline in workers trust and an increase in industrial unrest.

1. Case Study 1: The Maruti Suzuki Workers' Strike (2020)
   In 2020, workers at Maruti Suzuki's plant in Manesar, Haryana, went on strike to demand better wages and working conditions. The strike lasted for several weeks, resulting in significant losses for the company. Under the new labour reforms, the strike was deemed illegal, and the workers were forced to return to work. The grievance redressal mechanism was invoked, but it failed to address the workers' concerns, leading to further industrial unrest.
    
2. Case Study 2: The Tata Motors Workers' Dispute (2020)
   In 2020, workers at Tata Motors' plant in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, raised concerns about poor working conditions and low wages. The company responded by introducing a new performance-based incentive system, which was opposed by the workers. The dispute was referred to the grievance redressal mechanism, but it failed to resolve the issue. The workers went on strike, resulting in significant losses for the company. The strike was eventually resolved through negotiations, but the underlying issues remain unresolved.
    
3. Case Study 3: The Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (HMSI) Workers' Dispute (2020)
   In 2020, workers at HMSI's plant in Alwar, Rajasthan, raised concerns about poor working conditions and low wages. The company responded by introducing a new contract labour system, which was opposed by the workers. The dispute was referred to the grievance redressal.

mechanism, but it failed to resolve the issue. The workers went on strike, resulting in significant losses for the company. The strike was eventually resolved through negotiations, but the underlying issues remain unresolved. The case studies highlight the challenges faced by workers in the automotive industry in India under the new labour reforms.

The reforms have introduced a more flexible labour market, which has made it easier for employers to hire and fire workers at will. The grievance redressal mechanism has been criticized for being ineffective and biased towards employers.The case studies also highlight the need for more effective industrial dispute resolution mechanisms in the automotive industry. The current mechanisms have failed to address the root causes of industrial disputes, leading to a decline in industrial harmony.