Government control in settling industrial disputes

INTRODUCTION

State intervention in industrial relations is essentially a modern development. With the

emergence of the concept of welfare state, new ideas of social philosophy, national
economy and social justice sprang up with result that industrial relation no longer
remains the concern of labour and management alone. Many countries realized that for
general progress to be assured, economic progress was a must. In no country is a
complete laissez faire attitude now adopted in the matter of labour management relations.

In all the countries, over a period of time, the state has assumed power to regulate
industrial relations. It is the state which is now the most significant element in
determining the legal environment within which industrial relations operate.1 Bean
regarded state as an actor within industrial relations performing a number of distinct
roles2 The distinct role that state performs are broadly, categorized by him as five. Firstly,
it acts as a third party regulator promoting a legal framework which establishes general
ground rules for union-management inter-action, particularly in the procedure for
collective bargaining3 . Secondly, and additionally, as a means of supporting and
underpinning collective bargaining or as a supplement to it the law can be used establish
minimum standards while collective bargaining exploits particular advantages to secure
higher standards whenever it can.4 The third well established function in many countries
is the provision of state service for conciliation, mediation and arbitration with a view to
facilitating the settlement of industrial disputes. A fourth aspect of the role of the state
that has become increasingly important is that of a direct and primary participation as a
1
2. R. Bean , Comparative Industrial Relations: An introduction to Cross-National Perspectives, 100
(1985).

2
Ibid.

3
All modern states try to fix the rules of the game by, at a minimum, specifying tactics which are not
permitted and by facilitating the coming-together of the parties for negotiation.
4
H.A. Clegg , Trade Unionism under , Collective Bargaining: A Theory based on Comparisons of Six
Countries,101 (1976)
major employer in the public sector. In this respect, it influences the pattern of industrial
relations by its own behaviour and example. A fifth role that the state has come to play in
many countries is that of a regulator of incomes. As a result, direct and active state
involvement in the industrial relations has become much more pronounced in recent
years.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

The concern of state in matters relating to labour is product of its obligations to protect
the interest of industrial community , while at the same time fostering economic growth
in almost all countries. State has assumed powers to regulate labour relations in some
degree or the other. In some , 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.5 So far as
our country is concerned , State intervention in labour matter can be traced back to the
enactment of the Employers and Workmen’s Disputes Act 1860 which provided for the
speedy disposal of the dispute relating to the wages of workmen engaged in railways,
canals and other public works, by Magistrates. After World War-1 however, State
intervention in Dispute Resolution became more systematic and effective.

The Trade Dispute Act,1920 was passed providing for constituting courts of Inquiry and
Conciliation Boards and forbidding strikes in public utility services without notice. The
Act 1920 was replaced by the Trade Dispute Act 1929 incorporating provisions relating
to general strikes as well. Thereafter Bombay Trade Dispute (Conciliation) Act 1934 was
passed providing for permanent cadre for conciliators in selected industries. In the Year
1938 , Trade Dispute Act 1929 was amended authorizing and Central and Provincial
Govts. to appoint Conciliation Officers. In the same year, Bombay Industrial Dispute Act
1938 was passed providing for setting up of an industrial Court and prohibiting strikes
and lockouts under certain conditions. Thereafter, during the emergency caused by World
War II , under Rule 81A of the Defence of India Rules , power was given to the
appropriate Govt. to appoint industrial tribunals and enforce the awards passed by them.

5
Government of India Gazette (1969) Report of the National Commission on Labour p. 307.
Later on Bombay Industrial Disputes Act was replaced by the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act 1946. Little later in the year 1947, the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (here
after referred as the Act) was passed providing for appointing /constituting conciliation
officers, boards of conciliation, courts of inquiry and industrial tribunals.

The Act was amended in the year 1956 providing for constituting labour courts and
national industrial tribunals. The subject labour having been in the concurrent list of the
Constitution of India, both the centre and states have the power to legislate on labour
matters. Several states have amended the Central Act 1947 so as to suit to them while
others have enacted their own Acts.

The main object of the enactment of the Act is to ensure social justice to both the
employees and employers and advance the progress of industry by bringing about the
existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties so as to bring about
industrial peace which would accelerate procedure activity of the country. The Act
provides for prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. Industry means a business
(as a merchant), a trade ( as a culter), a manufacture (as a flour mill), an undertaking ( as
a gas company), a calling as a engineer, or service ( as a carrier) or an employment ( a
general term like calling embracing some of the others; and intended to extend to
vocations which might not be comprised in any of the rest), all these expressions so far
indicating the occupation in which the principle,... is indicated whether on land or water..
if the occupation so described is one in which persons are employed for pay, hire,
advantage or reward , that is as employees, then , with the exceptions stated, it is an
industry with in the meaning of Act.6 . Industrial Peace and industrial harmony may have
the same meaning; but we are inclined to think that the concept of industrial peace is
somewhat negative and restrictive. It emphasis absence of strife and struggle. The
concept of industrial harmony is positive and comprehensive and it postulates the
existence of understanding cooperation and a sense of partnership between the employers
and the employees. That is why we prefer to describe our approach as one is quest of
industrial harmony.7
6
Isaacs J, Jumbuna Coalmine, No liability vs Victoria Coalminer’s Association 6 CLR 309 , 370 ( High
Court of Australia).
7
Supra Note 6 , page 53.
SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
ACT

Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employer and employees , or
between employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected
with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the
conditions of Labour, or any person8. The Scope the definition of Industrial Dispute is
very wide. The words employment and non employment in the definition are of widest
amplitude and have been but in juxtaposition to make the definition comprehensive . Any
dispute concerned with employment or non-employment’ constitute the subject matter of
one class or industrial disputes. The matters which can form subject matter industrial
dispute are enumerated in Second, Third and Fourth Schedule given at the end of
Industrial Dispute Act.9

There are two types of Industrial Disputes-interest disputes and rights disputes. Interest
disputes relate to determination of new wage level and other condition of employment
while rights disputes on the other hand relate to interpretation and application of existing
standards and usually involve and individual worker or group of workers. Under category
of rights disputes, claim is made that the workmen have not been treated in accordance
with the rules, individual contracts of employment, laws and regulations and as per
collective agreements. Such disputes are also described as grievance disputes. Such
grievances may be 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 covered under the definition.
Settlement means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and
included a written agreement between employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than
in course conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties

8
Section 2 (K) of Industrial Dispute Act.
9
What Every Body should know about Labour Law by H.L. Kumar (Universal Publishing) p 104.
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.10The definition envisage two categories of settlement:

(1) Settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation and

(2) Settlement arrived at privately or otherwise than in the course of conciliation.

The settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation stand on a higher plane than the
settlements arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation. The legal effect of both
these settlements is not identical . The settlement arrived at otherwise than in the course
conciliation binds only the parties to settlement and none else. In any case it does not
stand on higher plane than the settlements arrived at in the conciliation and that makes
the two distinct and different from each other.

Procedures for settling labour dispute

Collective Bargaining, Negotiation, Conciliation and Mediation, Arbitration and

Adjudication are well known methods for settlement of industrial disputes.

Collective Bargaining :- Collective Bargaining is a technique by which dispute as to

conditions of employment, are resolved amicably, by agreement, rather than by coercion.
The dispute is settled peacefully and voluntarily, although reluctantly, between labour
and management.11 In the context of present day egalitarian society, with its fast changing
social norms, a concept like ‘collective bargaining’ is not a capable of a precise
definition. The content and Scope collective bargaining also varies from country to
country. Broadly Speaking Collective bargaining is a process of bargaining between
employers and workers, by which they settle their disputes relating to employment or
non-employment , terms of employment or conditions of the labour of the workman,
among themselves, on the strength of the sanctions available to each side .12
Occasionally, such bargaining results in an amicable settlement, arrived at voluntarily
10
Section 2(p) of Industrial Dispute Act.
11
Jagannatha Shetty J Karnal Leather karamchari Sanhathan v/s Liberty Foot Wear Co 1990 Lab I C 301,
307 , ( SC).
12
The Law of Industrial dispute volume I page 9 O.P. Malhotra. 2004 ed.
and peacefully , between the parties. But quite often, the workers and employers have to
apply sanctions by resorting to weapons of strike and lockouts, to pressurize one another,
which makes both the sides aware of the strength of one another and that finally forces
each of them to arrive at a settlement in mutual interest . It is thus the respective strength
of the parties which determine the issue, rather than the wordy duals which are largely
put on for show, as an element of strength in one party is by the same token, an element
of weakness in another.13

The final outcome of bargaining may also depend upon the art, skill and dexterity of
displaying the strength by the representatives of one party to the other.

Negotiation: Negotiation is one of the principal means of settling labour disputes.

However, due to lack of trust between the employers and workmen or their trade unions
or inter-rivalry of the trade unions and the employers being in a commanding position,
many a time negotiations fail. Through Amendment in the Act by Act 46 of 1982 Chapter
II B providing for reference of certain individual disputes to Grievance Settlement
Authority has been inserted in the Act. Under this Chapter, section 9 C has made it
obligatory for the employers to make provision for Grievance Settlement Authority for
settlement of industrial disputes connected with an individual workman employed in an
establishment in which fifty or more workmen are employed or have been employed on
any day. In the preceding twelve months. This amendment however even inspite of
having been made twenty one years back has not seen the light of the day.

Conciliation & Mediation: Through conciliation and mediation a third party provides
assistance with a view to help the parties to reach an agreement. The conciliator brings
the rival parties together discuss with them their differences and assist them in finding out
solution to their problems. Mediator on the other hand is more actively involved while
assisting the parties to find an amicable settlement. Sometimes he submits his own
proposals for settlement of their disputes.

13
K Alexander , Collective Bargaining in Industrial Labour in India , compiled by VB Singh , 1963 edn, pp
384-85.
Conciliation may be voluntary or compulsory. It is voluntary if the parties are free to
make use of the same, while it is compulsory when the parties have to participate
irrespective of whether they desire to do so or not. Section 4 of the Act provides for
appointment for conciliation officers and Section 5 for constitution of Boards of
Conciliation. The Board of conciliation is to consist of an independent Chairman and two
or four member representing the parties in equal number. While the former is charged
with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes, the
latter is required to promote the settlement of industrial disputes. The act generally allows
registered trade unions or a substantial number of workers/ employees and also in certain
cases individual workman to raise disputes. The performance of conciliation machinery,
though it does not appear to be unsatisfactory14, causes delays due to casual attitude of the
parties towards conciliation, defective processes in the selection of personnel and
unsatisfactory pre-job training and period-in-service-training.15 Delays in conciliation are
attributed partly to the excessive work-load on officers and partly to the procedural
defects. Since conciliation officer has no powers of coercion over labour and
management , he can only persuade them to climb down and meet each other. The
settlements that are claimed to result from conciliation are increasingly the result of
political intervention.16 Success of conciliation depends upon the appearances and their
sincere participation in conciliation proceedings of the parties before the conciliation
officers. Non-appearance and non- participation of the parties in conciliation proceedings
poses a serious hindrance in this direction. On the attitude of the parties National
Commission on Labour observed conciliation is looked upon very often by the parties as
merely hurdle to be crossed for reaching the next stage. The representatives sent by the
parties to appear before him are generally officer who do not have the power to take
decisions or make commitments: they merely carry the suggestion to the concerned
authorities on either side. This dampens the spirit of a conciliator. We have been told by
the employer’s and workers, organizations alike that the conciliation machinery is
weakened because of its falling into this type of disuse in recent years, 17 Section 11 of the

14
Supra No 6 page 322-23.
15
E.A. Ramaswamy, Trade Unions, Rule Making and Industrial Relations, (1985) 20 Economic and
Political Weekly 524.
16
Ibid.
17
Government of India Gazette (1969)page 323-446-7.
Act has clothed the conciliation officers with the power to enter premises occupied by
any establishment and also has been invested with the powers of civil court under the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 when trying a suit for enforcing the attendance of any person
and examining him on oath, compelling the production of documents and material objects
and issuing commission for examination of witness for the purpose of inquiry in to any
existing or apprehended industrial dispute. These provisions are seldom enforced.
Moreover, conciliators most often do not have requisite information on the employers
and trade unions, up to date wage/productivity, information and relevant up to date case
laws which affect his capability to conciliate effectively . The National commission on
labour in this context laid emphasis for pre job and on the job training of conciliation
officers.

Arbitration: The resort to arbitration procedure may be compulsory or arbitrary .

Compulsory arbitration is the submission of disputes to arbitration without consent or
agreement of the parties involved in the dispute and the award given by the arbitrator
being binding on the parties to the dispute. On the other hand in case of voluntary
arbitration, the dispute can be referred for arbitration only if the parties agree to the same.
Section 10 A of the Act, however, provides only for voluntary reference of dispute to
arbitration. This system, however, has not been widely practiced so far. One of the main
reasons for not gaining popularly of this procedure is lack of arbitrators who are able to
command respect and confidence of the parties to the dispute. Inter Union rivalry also
sometimes makes it difficult in arriving at an agreement on settlement of an arbitrator
who is acceptable to all the trade unions in the industry.

The Apex court in case Kurnal Leather Employess Union vs Liberty Footwear Co.18 has
held that the remedy under section 10K is voluntary and alternative for settlement of
industrial dispute but if the parties to the dispute have agreed in writing for settlement of
their disputes through arbitrator, then the Govt. cannot refer the dispute to the Tribunal
for adjudication.

18
A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 247.
Adjudication: If despite efforts of the conciliation officer , no settlement is arrived at
between employer and the workman, The Industrial Dispute a provides for a three tier
system of adjudication viz. Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals
under section, 7 , 7A and under section 7B respectively. Labour Courts have been
empowered to decide disputes relating to matters specified in the Second Schedule. These
matters are concerned with the rights of workers, such as propriety of legality of an order
passed by an employer under the standing orders, application and interpretation of
standing orders, discharge or dismissal of workman including reinstatement of grant of
relief to workman wrongfully discharged or dismissed, withdrawal of any customary
concession or privilege and illegality or otherwise of a strike or lockout.
The industrial tribunal are empowered to adjudicate on matters specified in both the
Second and Third schedule i.e. both rights and interest disputes. The jurisdiction of the
Industrial Tribunal is wider that the labour courts.

In Paulos vs State of Kerala , per Mathew J. 19 The government entrusted the work of
selection of candidates for the appointment of presiding officers of industrial tribunals
and labour courts to the advocate-general. This mode of selection of candidates was
challenged by writ petition in High Court of Kerala on the ground that the government is
bound to make appointment to this post after giving on opportunity to all eligible persons
before considering for appointment by proper publiciy through advertisement in
newspapers. In the absence of such opportunity being given to all the persons having
such prescribed qualification to be appointed, the method was unfair and arbitrary, and,
therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the Kerala
High Court upheld the appointment holding that the action taken by the government was
within the powers enjoined by law and it is not the requirement of law that for every
recruitment to an office under state, there must be an advertisement in the public press.
Therefore, it is not necessary that the state must in every case of public employment issue
an advertisement or notice inviting applications for an office.

19
(1993)2 LLJ 491 (Ker).
In Shellac Industries Ltd v/s Their workmen , per Dutt J.20 A tribunal once appointed
cannot be abolished by an executive act merely because the government chooses to put an
end to it when a reference is pending before it , for the state cannot do indirectly what is
not permissible to it to do expressly or impliedly under the Act. Hence, a dispute pending
before such a tribunal cannot be referred to another tribunal under Sec 10 (1) (d) as that
can be done only under Section 33 B.

In case of disputes which in the opinion of the Central Govt. involve question of national
importance or is of such nature that workers in more than one State are likely to be
affected. The Act provides for constitution of National Tribunals.

Industrial adjudication has undoubtedly played a conclusive role in the settlement of

industrial disputes and in ameliorating the working and living conditions of labour class.
In this context the National Commission of Labour observed :
the adjudicating machinery has exercised considerable influence on several aspects of
conditions of work and labour management relations. Adjudication has been on of the
instruments for the improvement of wages and working conditions and for securing
allowances for maintaining real wages, bonus and introducing uniformity in benefits and
amenities. It has also helped to avert many work stoppages by providing an acceptable
alternative to direct action and to protect and promote the interest of the weaker sections
of the working class, who were not well organized or were unable to bargain on an equal
footing with the employer.21

The Act empowers the appropriate government to refer industrial disputes when the
industrial disputes exist or are apprehended . The Apex court has also held in Shambu
Nath vs Bank of Baroda223 that the power conferred by Section 10 (1) on the Govt. to
make reference can be exercised not only when an industrial dispute exists but when it is
also apprehended. Kotwal J. Kashmir Ceramtics Ltd. v/s Labour Court23 It is not
20
( 1967) 1 LLJ 492, 495 ( Cal) (DB).
21
Government of India Gazette (1969)page 325.

22
A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1088.
23
1980 Lab IC 192 ( J&K).
permissible for the labour court to entertain more disputes than are contemplated in the
reference not is it permissible for it to decline to adjudicate matters which clearly arise in
the terms of the reference.

24
In the case State of Madras vs C.P. Sarathi and Secretary, India Tea Association vs
25
Ajeet Kumar Bharat , it was held that to make a reference is the administrative act of
the Government and the same view has been taken in the case Telecom Conway Divers
Mazdoor Sangh & authorities vs State of Bihar26 and in M/s Avon Services ( Production
Agencies ) Pvt. Ltd vs Industrial Tribunal Faridabad27 with the result that the State
Government has little choice in referring to make references of the disputes after failure
of conciliation proceedings . The adjudication system is not immune from its weakness.
The adjudication is dilatory and expensive . The Apex Court in case Ajaib Singh vs
28
Sirhind Co Op. Marketing Cum Processing Service Society Ltd .has also held that
reference of industrial dispute to labour court is not subject to limitation under Article
137 of the limitation Act . Thus no period of limitation having been prescribed under the
Act during which the industrial disputes can be raised and referred for adjudication
sometimes state disputes which arose even 15 to 20 years back are referred for
adjudication. Moreover the Labour court , Tribunal and National Tribunal do not posses
power of executing the order/awards passed by them although they are presided over by
highly qualified and experienced judicial officers such as District Judges and High Court
Judges with the result that generally workmen, weaker sections of the society suffer on
account of non-implementation of the order/awards. However, there is no viable
alternative to this system. Stringent provisions, therefore are required for ensuring the
time limit within which the orders /awards to be implemented and clothe the courts and
tribunal with powers of contempt of court for non-implementation of orders /awards
passed by them.

24
A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 53.
25
A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 507.
26
1989(FIR 73 ( SC)
27
(1978), L.L.N. 503.

28
AIR 199 SC 1351.
Under the Act, an award made by the adjudication authority is final as there is no appeal.
However actual practice almost every award made against the employer is challenged in
the High Court under Article 226 and 227 & in the Supreme Court under Article 136. It
takes year before final orders are passed in writ petitions pending before the High
Court/Supreme Court. If the period taken before the adjudicating authority is counted, it
does not take less 10 to 20 years before the protracted litigation could be disposed off. It
is the weaker sections who are inconvenienced and handicapped the most, by the delay.
It is submitted that the need of the day is to evolve the frame-work in which workers and
the management perceive the need to co-operate. Bilateral regulation is the most effective
method of evolving norms which enjoy wide acceptance.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MACHINERY AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

In India, Industrial Disputes Act is the main legislation for investigation and settlement of
all industrial disputes. The Act enumerates the contingencies when a strike or lock-out
can be lawfully resorted to, when they can be declared illegal or unlawful, conditions for
laying off, retrenching, discharging or dismissing a workman, circumstances under which
an industrial unit can be closed down and several other matters related to industrial
employees and employers.

The Act is administered by the Ministry of Labour through its Industrial Relations
Division. The Division is concerned with improving the institutional framework for
dispute settlement and amending labour laws relating to industrial relations. It works in
close co-ordination with the Central Industrial Relations Machinery (CIRM) in an effort
to ensure that the country gets a stable, dignified and efficient workforce, free from
exploitation and capable of generating higher levels of output. The CIRM, which is an
attached office of the Ministry of Labour, is also known as the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) [CLC(C)] Organisation. The CIRM is headed by the Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central). It has been entrusted with the task of maintaining
industrial relations, enforcement of labour laws and verification of trade union
membership in central sphere. It ensures harmonious industrial relations through:-
  Monitoring of industrial relations in Central Sphere;
 Intervention, mediation and conciliation in industrial disputes in order to bring
about settlement of disputes;
 Intervention in situations of threatened strikes and lockouts with a view to avert
the strikes and lockouts;
 Implementation of settlements and awards.

According to the Act, the term 'industrial dispute' means "any dispute or difference
between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or
the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person". The basic
objectives of the Act are:-

 To provide a suitable machinery for the just, equitable and peaceful settlement of
industrial disputes.
 To promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations
between employers and employees.
 To prevent illegal strikes and lockouts.
 To provide relief to workers against layoffs, retrenchment, wrongful dismissal and
victimisation.
 To promote collective bargaining.
 To ameliorate the conditions of workers.
 To avoid unfair labour practices.

Under the Act, a statutory machinery has been constituted for conciliation and
adjudication of industrial disputes. It includes:-

 The Act provides for appointment of 'Conciliation Officers', by appropriate

Government, charged with the duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement
of industrial disputes. He/ she may be appointed for a specified area, or for
specified industries in a specified area, or for one or more specified industries,
either permanently or for a limited period. It is the duty of these officers to bring
 both the employees and employers together and help them to resolve their
differences. If the dispute is settled, he/ she shall send a report, to that effect, to
the appropriate Government.
 The appropriate Government may, as occasion arises, constitute a 'Board of
Conciliation', which shall consist of a chairman and two or four other members, as
the appropriate Government thinks fit. The Chairman shall be an independent
person and the other members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers to
represent the parties to the dispute. Where a dispute has been referred to a Board,
it shall, without delay, investigate the dispute and do all such things as it thinks fit
for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement
of the dispute.
 The appropriate Government may, as occasion arises, also constitute a 'Court of
Inquiry' to inquire into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to
an industrial dispute. It shall, thereafter, report about it to the Government
ordinarily within a period of six months from the commencement of its inquiry.
Such a court may consist of one independent person or of such number of
independent persons as the appropriate Government may think fit and where it
consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the chairman.
 The appropriate Government may constitute one or more 'Labour Courts' to
adjudicate industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the second
schedule like issues related to standing orders, discharge or dismissal of workers,
illegality or otherwise of strikes and lockouts, withdrawal of any customary
benefit,etc. and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to them under
the Act. A labour court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the
appropriate Government.
 The appropriate Government may constitute one or more 'Industrial Tribunals' to
adjudicate industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the
second schedule or third schedule, and to perform such other functions as may be
assigned to them under the Act. A tribunal shall consist of one person only to be
appointed by the appropriate Government. The third schedule covers the matters
 such as wages, bonus, allowances and certain other benefits, certain working
conditions, discipline, rationalisation, retrenchment and closure of establishment.
 The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
one or more 'National Industrial Tribunals' to adjudicate an industrial dispute
which, in the opinion of the Central Government, involve questions of national
importance or are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more
than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such disputes. Such a
tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the Central
Government.
 The Act also makes it obligatory for an employer to set up a 'Grievance
Settlement Authority (GSA)' in an industrial establishment in which fifty or more
workers have been employed in the preceding twelve months. This authority shall
have the responsibility to settle industrial disputes concerning an individual
worker employed in that establishment.

No reference can be made under the Act to Conciliation Boards, Labour Courts or
Industrial Tribunals, unless the dispute has first been the subject of a decision of a
Grievance Settlement Authority.Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central
Government is the appropriate Government for investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes in regard to the departmental undertakings of the Central Government, major
ports, mines, oil fields, cantonment boards, banking and Insurance Companies, Life
Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited,
the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the Indian Airlines, Air India, the Airport
Authority of India and all air transport services. While in relation to other industrial
establishments, the State Government is the appropriate Government.

Accordingly, Central Government Industrial Tribunals (CGITs) -cum- Labour Courts

have been set up in different parts of the country. There are at present 17 CGITs to whom
industrial disputes could be referred for adjudication. These CGITs-cum-Labour Courts
are at New Delhi , Mumbai (2 CGITs ), Bangalore, Kolkata, Asansol, Dhanbad (2
CGITs ), Jabalpur, Chandigarh, Kanpur, Jaipur, Lucknow, Nagpur, Hyderabad, Chennai
and Bhubaneshwar. Out of these CGITs, 2 CGITs namely Mumbai-I and Kolkata have
been declared as National Industrial Tribunals. Besides, the Organization of the Chief
Labour Commissioner( Central) acts as the primary conciliatory agency in the Central
Government for industrial disputes. There are the Regional Labour Commissioners
(Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) who on behalf of the Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central) act as Conciliatory Officers in different parts of the
country.

CONCLUSION

It will be appreciate to recall the observation made by a jurist on the subject:

No doubt, the state intervention in the form of compulsory adjudication has significantly
contributed to the settlement of all sorts of industrial disputes between industrial
employers and their employees. But its very success is the failure of the collective
bargaining process as the normal method of settling industrial disputes. It follows that if
collective bargaining has to gain ground, the state intervention through compulsory
adjudication must wane to the vanishing point. It has outlive its utility . It is far better to
leave the management and Trade unions to settle their differences and disputes among
themselves than referring the issue to a third party settlement. Any attempt to solve socio-
economic problems arising out of industrial relations within the old framework may have
some limited usefulness, but cannot, in the nature of the case, achieve any, adequate
solution. The frequent break-down in industrial relations must give way to constructive
programmes. The State intervention through compulsory adjudication has often been
directed to , in the words of Prof. Mathews, the peripheral area of legal pathology rather
than to the healthy core of practical working cooperation.29

The settlement of disputes, reached by mutual discussion, debate and negotiation, leaves
no rancour behind and helps to create an atmosphere of harmony and co-operation.

29
Supra Note 13 Introduction, p. xxii-xxiii.