INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CASE STUDIES
CASE 1:
Mr. A is a habitual absentee and remains absent without any intimation and proper sanction of leave. His absentee records show that he remained absent from his duties without proper sanction of leave for 96 days during the last one year. He was advised number of times to improve his attendance but despite verbal advises and assurance given to him, he has not shown any improvement in his attendance. Habitual absence on the part of an employee is major misconduct under Standing orders no. 22(iv) of the Company. As an IRO officer of the company you have to issue him a charge-sheet for ‘Habitual Absence.’ Please draft the charge sheet to be issued to the concerned employee.
CASE 2:
The Union of the workers given a Demand Notice U/s 2k of I.D Act to the Management and negotiation on the said Demand Notice are going on between the management. The Union has told the workers to adopt go slow tactics and as a result thereof Mr. A while on duty on 17.02.2K at 04:00 pm in combination with others deliberately slowed down the work and also instigated M/s B, C & D to adopt ‘go slow’ tactics. Mr. A also threatened Mr. E who did not follow his suit. Slowing down production in concerted manner and threatening workers on duty is misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Please frame a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. A
CASE 3:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, code No. 647 is working in the cross-winding section of unit-III of MSML on 05.06.2002. he reported for duty in the evening shift timing being from 3pm to 11pm. On the said date at about 3pm, Sh. Arvind Kumar, shift officer who is superior instructed him to work on machine no.15 instead of machine no. 4on which he has also worked previously. But he willfully disobeyed his order and was found loitering in the department upto 4pm. Mr. Arvind Kumar at about 4pm again instructed him to work on machine no. 15 but Mr. Rajesh Kumar without any provocation lost his temper and said to him “Main Kisi sale ki parwah nahi karta. Tumhe main bahar dekh loonga.” After that he left the department without any permission.
The above conducts on the part of Mr. Rajesh Kumar are major misconducts under certifies Standing Order No. 22(1), 22(8), 22(9), 222(24) & 22(31).
Please draft a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. Rajesh Kumar
CASE 4:
Ramesh was just promoted as a shift officer. The promotion became effective when his immediate superior Mr. Sharma was out of town for a few days. Due to illness of Ramesh’s subordinate the work schedule was not being met. He decided to pitch in and help spending bout four hours daily in production. When Mr. Sharma returned to his work, Ramesh is not available, as he is not working on the shop floor. He is upset and tells him that it is the function of the supervisor to accomplish work with and through other people and not do it himself.
1. What was the initial problem in this case?
2. Tick the alternative you would select to solve future problems when workers are not available:
(a) Let the scheduled work be late and catch up when the worker returns
(b) Lend a hand as Ramesh did in this case.
(c) Prepare back up for emergency
(d) Workout an acceptable compromise with the superior.
3. Evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to the company, to the workers and to Ramesh.
4. How would you implement the alternative that you have selected?
CASE 5:
THE LOYAL EMPLOYEE
Raman is the Sales manager of a reputed Corporation. He has 25 employees in his department, and all are paid commission for their sales in their territories. For the past 3 years the market for the company’s goods has been steadily growing and the majority.\ of Raman’s staff have met this growth with increased sales. However one employee in particular, Gopal has not kept up with the pace.
Gopal has been with this corporation for over 20yrs and is now 56 yrs old. He is a friendly man and is liked by all his peers and those to whom he sells the company’s products o a regular basis. The company has always considered Gopal dependable and loyal. Through the years, he has been counted as an asset to the company, but at the age of 56, he has gone into an age of semi-retirement.
Gopal’s sales have not increased s others have and he does not have the determination to acquire a significant increase in sales. Raman wishes to change this situation. He wants to motivate Gopal into increasing his ales to match that of his younger peers. To do this. Gopal must begin to do more than just put in his time, but Raman is not sure how to go about trying to motivate him. Unlike the majority of new employees, Gopal is an old man, who within a few years will reach the age of retirement.
If you were Raman, the sales manager, what would you do?
CASE 6:
In a unit the operations for a particular section were withheld for a certain period. The section was doubling and twisting yarns as per market requirement. Due to the cut in production, about 25 operators were excess and they were adjusted to different departments like Mixing, Blow room Carding, Rig frame.
Mr. Ram Tilak an operator was assigned to Carding department. When Mr. Ram Tilak reported to Carding department, Mr. Khanna said to him, “I do not know whether you will stay here. We have sufficient men and we do not really need any extra person. But I will see that you may be accommodated for doffing or sweeping.” So as an operator for a few days, Ram Tilak tried to help other operators for doffing purpose. In the end of the week, Mr. Khanna told Ram Tilak, “I have got news for you. One operator has left the job, so we will be able to engage you on the m/c from monday.”
On Monday, Mr. Khanna assigned Ram Tilak to Carding m/c. Apparently the job was very easy, it was only to feed the laps from blow room and replacement of full cans with empty one at delivery end. “Here” said Mr. Khanna to Ram Tilak, “watch me do this operation. It’s as easy as ABC. A trainee can also do the same job. I sometimes think that a trainee would be better than an experienced operator. “ Mr. Khanna explained slowly to Ram Tilak what was happening. After dong it personally, he asked Ram Tilak to do the same operation and said, “Now try it.” Ram Tilak performed the job in a correct way. Mr. Khanna said, “Here, I told you there is nothing to do. You can do this job in your sleep also.” That was the last time Mr. Khanna spoke to Ram Tilak until Friday.
Between Monday and Friday, the following things happened to Ram Tilak:
I) Three times break-down on the machine.
II) Very low productivity
III) Higher CV%
IV) Higher naps
Ram Tilak used to manage the job with the help of other operators. On Friday as he was putting the laps on the Card one of his fingers was caught under the nip of feed rolls and he got a severe injury of fractures. That was when Mr. Khanna found time to talk to Ram Tilak once again.
Q1: How do you think Ram Tilak feel about his new job? His new boss?
Q2: In what way were the incidents that happened to Ram Tilak between Monday anf Friday afternoon related to his training?
Q3: What was wrong with the way Mr. Khanna trained Ram Tilak to operate the Carding machine?
Q4: If you were Mr. Khanna, what would you have done that he did not do?
CASE 7:
The Union of the workers gave a demand notice under section 2K of ID Act 1947 to the management of Anant Spinning Mills, Mandideep. Negotiations on the said demand notice are going on before Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and subsisting settlement dated 07.10.2001 is still in operation.
In order to pressurize the management, the workers in consent resorted to illegal and unjustified strike at 8am on 01.06.2002. On the said date, at about 8am, Mr. Mahendra kumar Sharma, Code No. 26203, Department winding along with M/s Mohan Singh Solanki, Siaram Garg, Mukesh Kumar gathered at the main gate of the factory an d stopped the willing workers to attend their duties and obstructed the movement of the goods from and to the factory. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with above named workers took a leading part in the strike, stopped the willing workers at the main gate, instigated and threatened them. When some workers entered the mill, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma and above said workers started shouting, “ Management, hai-hai. Hamari maagein poori karo, jo humse takraega, choor-choor ho jayega.” He along with the above said workers started throwing stones at the main gate resulting in loss of company property and damage to the chief security officer’s office.”
On 02.06.2002, at about 8am Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with Mr. Mohan Singh Solanki, Sia Ram Garg, Mukesh Kumar and other striking workers instigated and threatened M/s Ram Kumar, Prakash Chand and Sham Lal who were coming on duty by saying, “Tum hathtal mein shamil ho jao, nahin to tumhara jeena haram kar denge. Mandideep mein jaoge to tumahari tangen tod denge.”
On 02.06.2002 at about 4pm, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma led a mob of striking workers and gathered at the main gate of the factory and raised the slogans, “hum apni magen manvaa kar rahenge, jo saala afsar hume kaam par aane ko kahega, usko joote marenge, chamchon ki tangen tod denge.”
Mr.Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with M/s Mohan Singh Solanki and Siaram Garg is taking a leading part in the strke, and on 03.06.2202 at 3pm, he threatened M/s Ram Kumar, Madan Lal and Ram Avtar by saying “ Agar kam per gae to tangen tod dengen.” And also abused them in unparliament language.
On 03.06.2002 at about 7:45 am, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with above said striking workrs stopped the bus no. MP03A-757 carrying female workers near Jileten factory. He along with other striking workers was having lathis and red flags and he threatened the female workers by saying, “Agar tum humara sath nahi dogi, to tumhe utha kar le jayenge.” The female workers got frightened and started crying for help. Security guards who were following the bus reported the matter in the police post mandideep.
The above conduct on the part of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma and above named striking workers constitutes a major misconduct under the certified Standing Orders No. 12.1(K), (L), (N), (V) & ( Z).
Please frame a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma.
CASE 8:
Mr. Radhey Shyam appointed as Machine Operator on probation for a period of 6 months. After completion of 6 month, the management took a test in which Mr. Radhey Shyam could not qualify and his probation period was extended for another 6 months. Again a test was organized but again the employee could not qualify. Hence his services came to an end on the basis of conditions stipulated in appointment letter. Employee challenged the termination.
TERMS OF APPOINTMENT:
1. You are being appointed as Machine operator trainee for a period of 6 months provided that employer may in his discretion extend the period of training for giving his services as trainee for such further period not exceeding one year.
2. The employer may terminate this agreement at any time without prior notice.
3. The candidate shall diligently pursue the course of his training and abide the rules for time being in force relating to the conduct of training and pass the described test.
As a Personnel Manager, write the legal course of action. Give reference of case law and sections of related acts.
CASE 9:
Hindustan Textile Mills is a spinning unit of 50,000 spindles. The main product is cotton yarn of 40 count. The mil is situated in central India. Mr. T Patel who is the General Manager of the plant manages the unit. He is a B. tech of 1960 batch and is associated with the organization for the last 15 years. The plant started its production in the year 1989. The total strength the worker is 1750. All the workers are on the regular rolls of Hindustan Textile Mils and majority of them belong to Bihar. The workers are not unionized but strong groups from particular regions have influence on the workforce from a particular area.
Mr. Pramod Mishra joined the mill on 01.12.1995 as Trainee and he was promoted as Tenter from 8.8.2000 in the ring department. He belongs to Chappra district of Bihar. On 25.9.2001, Pramod Mishra was taking charge of the night shift and there was some argument that took place with the evening shift, Mr. Babloo, Mr. Mahesh, shift officer intervened in the matter and the issue was resolved. Babloo is a resident of Balia in U.P.
On 10.10.2001, in the night shift at around 1:30 am, Rakesh Kumar working as Tenter in blow room met with an accident. His right arm came in to contact with the machine and he shouted for help. Pramod Mishra rushed to the spot and meanwhile 3 other workers of Speed frame and draw frame also reached the spot and started their effort to pull Rakesh from the machine, Mr. Mahesh, shift officer with the timekeeper Mr. Kanhaiya Lal also joined them. There was blood al around. Mr. Mahesh intervened in between and took charge of the machine along with Mr. Gyan Singh, maintenance foreman. They were able to pull Rakesh Kumar out of the machine and in the meanwhile there were group pf 50 workers gathered on the sot. Kanhaiya took Rakesh to the hospital.
Meanwhile there was an argument that started between Mr. Pramod Mishra and shift officer Mr. Mahesh that the machines are not safe and the management is not keen about the safety of workers. Mr. Radhey, Mr. Deendayal, Mr. Prabhu Prakash also joined Mr. Pramod Mishra. Pramod Mishra took an iron rod from the blow room and started souting to all the workers to stop the plant. He along with Mr. Radhey, Mr. Deendayal and Mr. Prabhu forced al workers to come out of the plant and damaged window glasses of the main hall. The whole issue took an ugly turn.
You are the Personnel Manager. How will you handle the situation and describe the legal as well as other actions to resolve the issue.
CASE 10:
Mr.Daljit was employed in the Star Mills as a tractor driver. His job was to carry the raw material from godown to the production hall. Daljit was 55 years of age and he joind Star Mills on 09.09.1985. He was drawing wages of Rs. 1200/-. His shift timings are about 2 pm to 9 pm. On August 7, 1993 after coming back from his place of employment at about 9 pm he complained of severe chest pain. He was taken to the Dispensary from where he was taken to the District hospital where he was treated. Thereafter Daljit was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi. Mr. Daljit was a chronic Asthma patient.
On 21st Sept 1993, he died at AIIMS. His wife claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 75000/-. There was no report of any accident as the diseased was on his duty on August 7, 1993 and he completed his duty as usual.
Comment and analyze the claim of wife of Mr. Daljit in context of relevant acts.
CASE 11:
Mr. Arun Mathur is the General Manager at Diamond Textiles based at Ahmedabad. The company produces terry towels. The company enjoys a good image in the market due to superior quality of its products. Last year the turnover of the company was 120 crores which is almost 40% of the market turnover.
The company’s labour union is very strong and is affiliated to state level political party. All the emlployees of the company are members of this union. 20% of these employees having served the company for more than 30 years. The employees have deliberately lowered their productivity and have been only fighting for their due and undue rights. The company is yet to link productivity with wages. Hence productivity is seriously being neglected. The reduced productivity has now increased the cost of production and affected the company’s profitability.
Mr. Arun Mathur is seriously thinking on certain ways and means to improve the individual productivity. He tends to convince the employees that improvement in productivity does not mean excess work for employees. Productivity growth can also be proportionately rewarded so that efficient employees are adequately encouraged t maintain improved performance results.
Different practices, monetary and non-monetary incentives, training programmes, literature and discussions are to be carefully designed t o improve productivity in the company. Behavioral or attitudinal aspects of productivity improvement are to be taken in to account. Legal provisions of the labour law also need to be studied in relation to compulsory maintenance of average productivity.
Discuss various techniques, which can help Mr. Anil Mathur. Mr. Kumar, Personnel Manager is fancy about the idea of outsourcing also.
CASE 12:
XYZ is a public limited concern having its factory at amunanagar with its registeres office at Delhi. It employs 1200 workmen, who are organized in to a union called the “ National Manufacturing Company Mazdoor Union.” Ramjas, a fitter in the engineering department is the President of the Union, and he commands considerable respect among the workmen.
On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees at the company led by Ramjas met the Wroks Manager and asked him that May 1, may be declared a holiday. The works manager expressed inability to oblige the Union. Then the situation took an ugly turn, there was exchange of hot words. Ramjas accused the works manager of being anti-working class and having callous despot.
The same evening Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked workers to observe May Day in fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works manager was also adopted in the meeting.
At the start of the shift at 8:00 am, the next day, i.e. May day, Ramjas went to the factory, collected a number of workmen, including several office bearers of the Union and went from department to department urging the workmen to stop work. Within a short time, a large number of workmen left their workplace and streamed out. A flag-hosting ceremony was held otside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted the workers tojoin the May Day rally later in the evening. The factory did not work for the rest of the day.
The mangement issued a chrge sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May, 1983 giivng details of the charges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under Stanidng Order 24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (See in Annexure I). Ramjas was required to submit his explanation in the following language:
“ You are required to submit your explanation to the above acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt here of as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company.” (For charge sheet see Annexure II)
It was stated in the charge sheet that Mr. P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the company would hold the enquiry on the charge sheet at 11:00 am on 10th May 1983 in the conference hall of the factory.
Ramjas refused to accept the charge sheet. Thereby it was sent to him by Regd. Post on the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the Notice Board of the company. The registered cover was backed with the remarks “refused to accept.”
Ramjas however appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be permitted to be defended by a lawyer or Mr. Pritam Singh, the General Secy of the Union who was not the employee of the company. Request of Mr. Ramjas was turned down by the E.O. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating that he could not expect justice from the legal advisor of the company who was biased in favour of management and that he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. The E.O recorded the statement of the MR and concluded the enquiry proceedings he found Ramjas guilty of all the charges leveled against him. He submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the same to the secretary of the company at the head office for advice. Secy wrote back that Ramjas should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a letter to Ramjas terminating his service with immediate effect stating that all the charges leveled against him were found proved and that he was guilty of misconduct for which dismissal was the proper punishment.
The punishment inflicted upon Ramjas was assailed by the Union on the following grounds:
1. The charges of insubordination were subversive of discipline in passing resolution condemning the works manager was not misconduct and, as such no enquiry could be held against him.
2. The charge sheet was invalid in as much as the management being biased against him and already made up its mind to dismiss him and that holding of enquiry was just a legal formality.
3. No opportunity was given to him to defend himself.’
4. The proceedings of the enquiry recorded in his absence were not binding on him and no punishment could be awarded on the basis of the same.
5. The appointment of the legal advisor of the company as the EO was illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
6. The works manager being himself involved in the incident was interested in the outcome of the enquiry and could not act as the punishment authority.
7. The works manager in the circumstances could not and did not apply his mind independently in deciding the quantum of punishment.
8. He was victimized for his trade union activities and for being the president of the union.
ANNEXURE I:
24 (a) willful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.
© striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any statue or the standing order
(g) entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in accordance with the standing orders.
(k) threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory premises
(p) deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or otherwise, against any officer or employee of the company.
ANNEXURE II:
To,
Shri Ramjas
Fitter, Engg. Deptt
Token No. 1760
Whereas on 30th April, 1983 you along with 20 of your colleagues went to the office of the works manager, Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your request to declare May1, 1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated arguments and used undesirable language against him. And whereas in the evening of the dame day that is 30th April, 1983 you organized and spoke at a meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution on condemning the works manager was passed.
Whereas on the morning of 1st may 1983 you along with other workman of the factory moved from deptt to deptt and incited the workers to stop work this resulted in workmen walking out of factory premises for the day.
The above acts of omission and commission on your part amount to misconduct under section 24 (a), (c), (g ), (k ) & (p ) of the standing orders.
You are hereby require to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company.
Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the standing order sin the matters of the above charge sheet will be held by Sh. P.C. Gupta, legal advisor of the company at 11:00 am on 10th May 1983 in the conference room of the factory. You are herby requires to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid time, date and place.
In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above you are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect.
From India, Delhi
107CASE 1:
Mr. A is a habitual absentee and remains absent without any intimation and proper sanction of leave. His absentee records show that he remained absent from his duties without proper sanction of leave for 96 days during the last one year. He was advised number of times to improve his attendance but despite verbal advises and assurance given to him, he has not shown any improvement in his attendance. Habitual absence on the part of an employee is major misconduct under Standing orders no. 22(iv) of the Company. As an IRO officer of the company you have to issue him a charge-sheet for ‘Habitual Absence.’ Please draft the charge sheet to be issued to the concerned employee.
CASE 2:
The Union of the workers given a Demand Notice U/s 2k of I.D Act to the Management and negotiation on the said Demand Notice are going on between the management. The Union has told the workers to adopt go slow tactics and as a result thereof Mr. A while on duty on 17.02.2K at 04:00 pm in combination with others deliberately slowed down the work and also instigated M/s B, C & D to adopt ‘go slow’ tactics. Mr. A also threatened Mr. E who did not follow his suit. Slowing down production in concerted manner and threatening workers on duty is misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Please frame a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. A
CASE 3:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, code No. 647 is working in the cross-winding section of unit-III of MSML on 05.06.2002. he reported for duty in the evening shift timing being from 3pm to 11pm. On the said date at about 3pm, Sh. Arvind Kumar, shift officer who is superior instructed him to work on machine no.15 instead of machine no. 4on which he has also worked previously. But he willfully disobeyed his order and was found loitering in the department upto 4pm. Mr. Arvind Kumar at about 4pm again instructed him to work on machine no. 15 but Mr. Rajesh Kumar without any provocation lost his temper and said to him “Main Kisi sale ki parwah nahi karta. Tumhe main bahar dekh loonga.” After that he left the department without any permission.
The above conducts on the part of Mr. Rajesh Kumar are major misconducts under certifies Standing Order No. 22(1), 22(8), 22(9), 222(24) & 22(31).
Please draft a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. Rajesh Kumar
CASE 4:
Ramesh was just promoted as a shift officer. The promotion became effective when his immediate superior Mr. Sharma was out of town for a few days. Due to illness of Ramesh’s subordinate the work schedule was not being met. He decided to pitch in and help spending bout four hours daily in production. When Mr. Sharma returned to his work, Ramesh is not available, as he is not working on the shop floor. He is upset and tells him that it is the function of the supervisor to accomplish work with and through other people and not do it himself.
1. What was the initial problem in this case?
2. Tick the alternative you would select to solve future problems when workers are not available:
(a) Let the scheduled work be late and catch up when the worker returns
(b) Lend a hand as Ramesh did in this case.
(c) Prepare back up for emergency
(d) Workout an acceptable compromise with the superior.
3. Evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to the company, to the workers and to Ramesh.
4. How would you implement the alternative that you have selected?
CASE 5:
THE LOYAL EMPLOYEE
Raman is the Sales manager of a reputed Corporation. He has 25 employees in his department, and all are paid commission for their sales in their territories. For the past 3 years the market for the company’s goods has been steadily growing and the majority.\ of Raman’s staff have met this growth with increased sales. However one employee in particular, Gopal has not kept up with the pace.
Gopal has been with this corporation for over 20yrs and is now 56 yrs old. He is a friendly man and is liked by all his peers and those to whom he sells the company’s products o a regular basis. The company has always considered Gopal dependable and loyal. Through the years, he has been counted as an asset to the company, but at the age of 56, he has gone into an age of semi-retirement.
Gopal’s sales have not increased s others have and he does not have the determination to acquire a significant increase in sales. Raman wishes to change this situation. He wants to motivate Gopal into increasing his ales to match that of his younger peers. To do this. Gopal must begin to do more than just put in his time, but Raman is not sure how to go about trying to motivate him. Unlike the majority of new employees, Gopal is an old man, who within a few years will reach the age of retirement.
If you were Raman, the sales manager, what would you do?
CASE 6:
In a unit the operations for a particular section were withheld for a certain period. The section was doubling and twisting yarns as per market requirement. Due to the cut in production, about 25 operators were excess and they were adjusted to different departments like Mixing, Blow room Carding, Rig frame.
Mr. Ram Tilak an operator was assigned to Carding department. When Mr. Ram Tilak reported to Carding department, Mr. Khanna said to him, “I do not know whether you will stay here. We have sufficient men and we do not really need any extra person. But I will see that you may be accommodated for doffing or sweeping.” So as an operator for a few days, Ram Tilak tried to help other operators for doffing purpose. In the end of the week, Mr. Khanna told Ram Tilak, “I have got news for you. One operator has left the job, so we will be able to engage you on the m/c from monday.”
On Monday, Mr. Khanna assigned Ram Tilak to Carding m/c. Apparently the job was very easy, it was only to feed the laps from blow room and replacement of full cans with empty one at delivery end. “Here” said Mr. Khanna to Ram Tilak, “watch me do this operation. It’s as easy as ABC. A trainee can also do the same job. I sometimes think that a trainee would be better than an experienced operator. “ Mr. Khanna explained slowly to Ram Tilak what was happening. After dong it personally, he asked Ram Tilak to do the same operation and said, “Now try it.” Ram Tilak performed the job in a correct way. Mr. Khanna said, “Here, I told you there is nothing to do. You can do this job in your sleep also.” That was the last time Mr. Khanna spoke to Ram Tilak until Friday.
Between Monday and Friday, the following things happened to Ram Tilak:
I) Three times break-down on the machine.
II) Very low productivity
III) Higher CV%
IV) Higher naps
Ram Tilak used to manage the job with the help of other operators. On Friday as he was putting the laps on the Card one of his fingers was caught under the nip of feed rolls and he got a severe injury of fractures. That was when Mr. Khanna found time to talk to Ram Tilak once again.
Q1: How do you think Ram Tilak feel about his new job? His new boss?
Q2: In what way were the incidents that happened to Ram Tilak between Monday anf Friday afternoon related to his training?
Q3: What was wrong with the way Mr. Khanna trained Ram Tilak to operate the Carding machine?
Q4: If you were Mr. Khanna, what would you have done that he did not do?
CASE 7:
The Union of the workers gave a demand notice under section 2K of ID Act 1947 to the management of Anant Spinning Mills, Mandideep. Negotiations on the said demand notice are going on before Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and subsisting settlement dated 07.10.2001 is still in operation.
In order to pressurize the management, the workers in consent resorted to illegal and unjustified strike at 8am on 01.06.2002. On the said date, at about 8am, Mr. Mahendra kumar Sharma, Code No. 26203, Department winding along with M/s Mohan Singh Solanki, Siaram Garg, Mukesh Kumar gathered at the main gate of the factory an d stopped the willing workers to attend their duties and obstructed the movement of the goods from and to the factory. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with above named workers took a leading part in the strike, stopped the willing workers at the main gate, instigated and threatened them. When some workers entered the mill, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma and above said workers started shouting, “ Management, hai-hai. Hamari maagein poori karo, jo humse takraega, choor-choor ho jayega.” He along with the above said workers started throwing stones at the main gate resulting in loss of company property and damage to the chief security officer’s office.”
On 02.06.2002, at about 8am Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with Mr. Mohan Singh Solanki, Sia Ram Garg, Mukesh Kumar and other striking workers instigated and threatened M/s Ram Kumar, Prakash Chand and Sham Lal who were coming on duty by saying, “Tum hathtal mein shamil ho jao, nahin to tumhara jeena haram kar denge. Mandideep mein jaoge to tumahari tangen tod denge.”
On 02.06.2002 at about 4pm, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma led a mob of striking workers and gathered at the main gate of the factory and raised the slogans, “hum apni magen manvaa kar rahenge, jo saala afsar hume kaam par aane ko kahega, usko joote marenge, chamchon ki tangen tod denge.”
Mr.Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with M/s Mohan Singh Solanki and Siaram Garg is taking a leading part in the strke, and on 03.06.2202 at 3pm, he threatened M/s Ram Kumar, Madan Lal and Ram Avtar by saying “ Agar kam per gae to tangen tod dengen.” And also abused them in unparliament language.
On 03.06.2002 at about 7:45 am, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with above said striking workrs stopped the bus no. MP03A-757 carrying female workers near Jileten factory. He along with other striking workers was having lathis and red flags and he threatened the female workers by saying, “Agar tum humara sath nahi dogi, to tumhe utha kar le jayenge.” The female workers got frightened and started crying for help. Security guards who were following the bus reported the matter in the police post mandideep.
The above conduct on the part of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma and above named striking workers constitutes a major misconduct under the certified Standing Orders No. 12.1(K), (L), (N), (V) & ( Z).
Please frame a charge sheet to be issued to Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma.
CASE 8:
Mr. Radhey Shyam appointed as Machine Operator on probation for a period of 6 months. After completion of 6 month, the management took a test in which Mr. Radhey Shyam could not qualify and his probation period was extended for another 6 months. Again a test was organized but again the employee could not qualify. Hence his services came to an end on the basis of conditions stipulated in appointment letter. Employee challenged the termination.
TERMS OF APPOINTMENT:
1. You are being appointed as Machine operator trainee for a period of 6 months provided that employer may in his discretion extend the period of training for giving his services as trainee for such further period not exceeding one year.
2. The employer may terminate this agreement at any time without prior notice.
3. The candidate shall diligently pursue the course of his training and abide the rules for time being in force relating to the conduct of training and pass the described test.
As a Personnel Manager, write the legal course of action. Give reference of case law and sections of related acts.
CASE 9:
Hindustan Textile Mills is a spinning unit of 50,000 spindles. The main product is cotton yarn of 40 count. The mil is situated in central India. Mr. T Patel who is the General Manager of the plant manages the unit. He is a B. tech of 1960 batch and is associated with the organization for the last 15 years. The plant started its production in the year 1989. The total strength the worker is 1750. All the workers are on the regular rolls of Hindustan Textile Mils and majority of them belong to Bihar. The workers are not unionized but strong groups from particular regions have influence on the workforce from a particular area.
Mr. Pramod Mishra joined the mill on 01.12.1995 as Trainee and he was promoted as Tenter from 8.8.2000 in the ring department. He belongs to Chappra district of Bihar. On 25.9.2001, Pramod Mishra was taking charge of the night shift and there was some argument that took place with the evening shift, Mr. Babloo, Mr. Mahesh, shift officer intervened in the matter and the issue was resolved. Babloo is a resident of Balia in U.P.
On 10.10.2001, in the night shift at around 1:30 am, Rakesh Kumar working as Tenter in blow room met with an accident. His right arm came in to contact with the machine and he shouted for help. Pramod Mishra rushed to the spot and meanwhile 3 other workers of Speed frame and draw frame also reached the spot and started their effort to pull Rakesh from the machine, Mr. Mahesh, shift officer with the timekeeper Mr. Kanhaiya Lal also joined them. There was blood al around. Mr. Mahesh intervened in between and took charge of the machine along with Mr. Gyan Singh, maintenance foreman. They were able to pull Rakesh Kumar out of the machine and in the meanwhile there were group pf 50 workers gathered on the sot. Kanhaiya took Rakesh to the hospital.
Meanwhile there was an argument that started between Mr. Pramod Mishra and shift officer Mr. Mahesh that the machines are not safe and the management is not keen about the safety of workers. Mr. Radhey, Mr. Deendayal, Mr. Prabhu Prakash also joined Mr. Pramod Mishra. Pramod Mishra took an iron rod from the blow room and started souting to all the workers to stop the plant. He along with Mr. Radhey, Mr. Deendayal and Mr. Prabhu forced al workers to come out of the plant and damaged window glasses of the main hall. The whole issue took an ugly turn.
You are the Personnel Manager. How will you handle the situation and describe the legal as well as other actions to resolve the issue.
CASE 10:
Mr.Daljit was employed in the Star Mills as a tractor driver. His job was to carry the raw material from godown to the production hall. Daljit was 55 years of age and he joind Star Mills on 09.09.1985. He was drawing wages of Rs. 1200/-. His shift timings are about 2 pm to 9 pm. On August 7, 1993 after coming back from his place of employment at about 9 pm he complained of severe chest pain. He was taken to the Dispensary from where he was taken to the District hospital where he was treated. Thereafter Daljit was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi. Mr. Daljit was a chronic Asthma patient.
On 21st Sept 1993, he died at AIIMS. His wife claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 75000/-. There was no report of any accident as the diseased was on his duty on August 7, 1993 and he completed his duty as usual.
Comment and analyze the claim of wife of Mr. Daljit in context of relevant acts.
CASE 11:
Mr. Arun Mathur is the General Manager at Diamond Textiles based at Ahmedabad. The company produces terry towels. The company enjoys a good image in the market due to superior quality of its products. Last year the turnover of the company was 120 crores which is almost 40% of the market turnover.
The company’s labour union is very strong and is affiliated to state level political party. All the emlployees of the company are members of this union. 20% of these employees having served the company for more than 30 years. The employees have deliberately lowered their productivity and have been only fighting for their due and undue rights. The company is yet to link productivity with wages. Hence productivity is seriously being neglected. The reduced productivity has now increased the cost of production and affected the company’s profitability.
Mr. Arun Mathur is seriously thinking on certain ways and means to improve the individual productivity. He tends to convince the employees that improvement in productivity does not mean excess work for employees. Productivity growth can also be proportionately rewarded so that efficient employees are adequately encouraged t maintain improved performance results.
Different practices, monetary and non-monetary incentives, training programmes, literature and discussions are to be carefully designed t o improve productivity in the company. Behavioral or attitudinal aspects of productivity improvement are to be taken in to account. Legal provisions of the labour law also need to be studied in relation to compulsory maintenance of average productivity.
Discuss various techniques, which can help Mr. Anil Mathur. Mr. Kumar, Personnel Manager is fancy about the idea of outsourcing also.
CASE 12:
XYZ is a public limited concern having its factory at amunanagar with its registeres office at Delhi. It employs 1200 workmen, who are organized in to a union called the “ National Manufacturing Company Mazdoor Union.” Ramjas, a fitter in the engineering department is the President of the Union, and he commands considerable respect among the workmen.
On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees at the company led by Ramjas met the Wroks Manager and asked him that May 1, may be declared a holiday. The works manager expressed inability to oblige the Union. Then the situation took an ugly turn, there was exchange of hot words. Ramjas accused the works manager of being anti-working class and having callous despot.
The same evening Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked workers to observe May Day in fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works manager was also adopted in the meeting.
At the start of the shift at 8:00 am, the next day, i.e. May day, Ramjas went to the factory, collected a number of workmen, including several office bearers of the Union and went from department to department urging the workmen to stop work. Within a short time, a large number of workmen left their workplace and streamed out. A flag-hosting ceremony was held otside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted the workers tojoin the May Day rally later in the evening. The factory did not work for the rest of the day.
The mangement issued a chrge sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May, 1983 giivng details of the charges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under Stanidng Order 24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (See in Annexure I). Ramjas was required to submit his explanation in the following language:
“ You are required to submit your explanation to the above acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt here of as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company.” (For charge sheet see Annexure II)
It was stated in the charge sheet that Mr. P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the company would hold the enquiry on the charge sheet at 11:00 am on 10th May 1983 in the conference hall of the factory.
Ramjas refused to accept the charge sheet. Thereby it was sent to him by Regd. Post on the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the Notice Board of the company. The registered cover was backed with the remarks “refused to accept.”
Ramjas however appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be permitted to be defended by a lawyer or Mr. Pritam Singh, the General Secy of the Union who was not the employee of the company. Request of Mr. Ramjas was turned down by the E.O. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating that he could not expect justice from the legal advisor of the company who was biased in favour of management and that he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. The E.O recorded the statement of the MR and concluded the enquiry proceedings he found Ramjas guilty of all the charges leveled against him. He submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the same to the secretary of the company at the head office for advice. Secy wrote back that Ramjas should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a letter to Ramjas terminating his service with immediate effect stating that all the charges leveled against him were found proved and that he was guilty of misconduct for which dismissal was the proper punishment.
The punishment inflicted upon Ramjas was assailed by the Union on the following grounds:
1. The charges of insubordination were subversive of discipline in passing resolution condemning the works manager was not misconduct and, as such no enquiry could be held against him.
2. The charge sheet was invalid in as much as the management being biased against him and already made up its mind to dismiss him and that holding of enquiry was just a legal formality.
3. No opportunity was given to him to defend himself.’
4. The proceedings of the enquiry recorded in his absence were not binding on him and no punishment could be awarded on the basis of the same.
5. The appointment of the legal advisor of the company as the EO was illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
6. The works manager being himself involved in the incident was interested in the outcome of the enquiry and could not act as the punishment authority.
7. The works manager in the circumstances could not and did not apply his mind independently in deciding the quantum of punishment.
8. He was victimized for his trade union activities and for being the president of the union.
ANNEXURE I:
24 (a) willful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.
© striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any statue or the standing order
(g) entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in accordance with the standing orders.
(k) threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory premises
(p) deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or otherwise, against any officer or employee of the company.
ANNEXURE II:
To,
Shri Ramjas
Fitter, Engg. Deptt
Token No. 1760
Whereas on 30th April, 1983 you along with 20 of your colleagues went to the office of the works manager, Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your request to declare May1, 1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated arguments and used undesirable language against him. And whereas in the evening of the dame day that is 30th April, 1983 you organized and spoke at a meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution on condemning the works manager was passed.
Whereas on the morning of 1st may 1983 you along with other workman of the factory moved from deptt to deptt and incited the workers to stop work this resulted in workmen walking out of factory premises for the day.
The above acts of omission and commission on your part amount to misconduct under section 24 (a), (c), (g ), (k ) & (p ) of the standing orders.
You are hereby require to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the service of the company.
Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the standing order sin the matters of the above charge sheet will be held by Sh. P.C. Gupta, legal advisor of the company at 11:00 am on 10th May 1983 in the conference room of the factory. You are herby requires to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid time, date and place.
In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above you are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect.
From India, Delhi
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.
Industrial Relations.ppt
Industrial Relations (TN) rules 2022.pdf