Dear Experts, Let me clarify how many people can attend labour hearing at labour office from the side of employees as their representatives. Geena
From India, Kochi
From India, Kochi
Dear Geena,
Employer representatives number is not mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Number of employee representatives should be decided by the Employer only.
Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:--
Works Committe Formation : Works Committee shall be constituted when the work force employed is exceeding 100 on any day in the preceeding 12 months in the manner provided under Sec. 3. works committee shall be constituted with equal workers & employer representatives.
This is as per my knowledge
Regards,
Narayan
From India, Hyderabad
71Employer representatives number is not mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Number of employee representatives should be decided by the Employer only.
Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:--
Works Committe Formation : Works Committee shall be constituted when the work force employed is exceeding 100 on any day in the preceeding 12 months in the manner provided under Sec. 3. works committee shall be constituted with equal workers & employer representatives.
This is as per my knowledge
Regards,
Narayan
From India, Hyderabad
Works committee cannot represent employee in labour office.Neither the ID Act nor the Kerala industrial Disputes rules prescribes this issue The rules say who shall sign the settlement on behalf of employer or workmen.Employer can limit the number say two person from the concerned union or the employee alone.
Varghese Mathew
TVPM-9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Varghese Mathew
TVPM-9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
DEAR GEENA,
Pl refer Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. What is mentioned in this entire section having 4 sub-sections is the description of the representatives of the workmen and employers before the various Authorities of Conciliation, Arbitration and Adjudication and relaxation for the engagement of legal practitioners by either subject to certain conditions. The number of reps has not been mentioned.Too many cooks will spoil the broth.So it is always better to restrict the number of reps to the extent necessary for facilitating a smooth, and useful discussion that will lead to speedy and amicable resolution of dispute, if any .
From India, Salem
Pl refer Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. What is mentioned in this entire section having 4 sub-sections is the description of the representatives of the workmen and employers before the various Authorities of Conciliation, Arbitration and Adjudication and relaxation for the engagement of legal practitioners by either subject to certain conditions. The number of reps has not been mentioned.Too many cooks will spoil the broth.So it is always better to restrict the number of reps to the extent necessary for facilitating a smooth, and useful discussion that will lead to speedy and amicable resolution of dispute, if any .
From India, Salem
Dear Greena
Mr.Umakanthan has rightly referred to Sec.36 of the Industrial Disputes Act which deals with representation of parties before any proceeding under the Act. It does not fix any number as being authorised to represent a workman.It only says any member or executive office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member, can represent him.
You seem to be referring to hearings in conciliation proceddings at labour office.An industrial dispute under conciliation may end either in settlement or failure.Therefore some help and guidance can be sought from Rule 58 of the Central Rules on the issue of representation which states that a settlement can be signed by any officer of the a trade union of the workmen or by five representaives of the workmen, duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for this purpose.
It appears from the above that if the dispute is raised by a trade union on behalf of the workmen,it is enough if an office bearer(or two) attends the hearing namely President or Vice -President or the Secretary etc.).If there is no such union of workmen, probably five workmen can be allowed to attend the hearing. I ahve not come across any case law on this issue.This is only an interpretation of Sec.36 read with Rule 58 of Centarl Rules. You may look for your relevant State rule.
B.Saikumar
In-house
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Mr.Umakanthan has rightly referred to Sec.36 of the Industrial Disputes Act which deals with representation of parties before any proceeding under the Act. It does not fix any number as being authorised to represent a workman.It only says any member or executive office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member, can represent him.
You seem to be referring to hearings in conciliation proceddings at labour office.An industrial dispute under conciliation may end either in settlement or failure.Therefore some help and guidance can be sought from Rule 58 of the Central Rules on the issue of representation which states that a settlement can be signed by any officer of the a trade union of the workmen or by five representaives of the workmen, duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for this purpose.
It appears from the above that if the dispute is raised by a trade union on behalf of the workmen,it is enough if an office bearer(or two) attends the hearing namely President or Vice -President or the Secretary etc.).If there is no such union of workmen, probably five workmen can be allowed to attend the hearing. I ahve not come across any case law on this issue.This is only an interpretation of Sec.36 read with Rule 58 of Centarl Rules. You may look for your relevant State rule.
B.Saikumar
In-house
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear All,
Apart from the rules and sections which are silent on the number of representatives, the following contexts I would like to share that have happened with me eralier.
It is usually a practice from the unions to throng the labor office with hundreds of members all supposed to be wanting to participate in the conciliation.
There would also be a threat perception when ever a management representative attends such conciliation where you have a mob of so called 'employee representatives' who would adopt pressure tactics to take out certain commitment during the conciliation.
Under such circumstances it is better to avoid conciliation and make a written reply through your legal adviser and let the matters be referred to adjudication.
Kind regards
Dayanand L Guddin
From Singapore, Singapore
Apart from the rules and sections which are silent on the number of representatives, the following contexts I would like to share that have happened with me eralier.
It is usually a practice from the unions to throng the labor office with hundreds of members all supposed to be wanting to participate in the conciliation.
There would also be a threat perception when ever a management representative attends such conciliation where you have a mob of so called 'employee representatives' who would adopt pressure tactics to take out certain commitment during the conciliation.
Under such circumstances it is better to avoid conciliation and make a written reply through your legal adviser and let the matters be referred to adjudication.
Kind regards
Dayanand L Guddin
From Singapore, Singapore
While appreciating the graphic picture of ground reality depicted by Dayanand, as a retired Conciliation Officer, I would like to state something more in this regard. Generally, conciliation proceedings by the conciliation officers are conducted in an air of informal atmosphere.Thus it would be a catharsis of untold emotions and therefore at times it could be a scene of commotion.Particularly in a strike or lock-out situation it is quite natural on the part of anxious workmen to assemble in the Labour Office in large numbers to watch the negotiations.But interestingly conciliation is only an administrative function primarily aiming at (1) making the disputants sit together across the table so as to understand the justifications of their respective stands on the issues at stake (2) identifying the issues that are quickly resolvable and inducing the disputants accordingly (3) understanding the hidden agenda behind the respective stands of the parties and therefore bringing out only the contentious issues for an open discussion and finally inducing the disputants to take amicable decisions mutually beneficial in the long run.So, purposely the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 does not confer any special powers on the conciliation officer and leaves every thing to his own ingenuity.In such a critical function crowding of the venue of the proceedings will be a great disadvantage and therefore the view of Saikumar basing on rule 58 of the Central Rules,1957 seems acceptable to me.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Labour laws.ppt
A-Role of labour contractors in global production networks -A-1 Imp..pdf
All the labour laws.doc