RESEARCH PROJECT

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF LABOUR LAWS II

ADJUDICATION UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT- AN OVERVIEW

Submitted to: Prof. Pallavi Shankar

Submitted by : Mr. Abhishek Singh

Academic Year: 2018-19

Roll Number: 1606

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Prof. Pallavi Shankar, the faculty for Laour Law for
her invaluable support, guidance and advice. I would also like to thank my parents who have
always been there to support me. I would also like to thank the library staff for working long
hours to facilitate us with required material essential for successful completion of any academic
pursuit.

Last but not the least, I extend gratitude to my friends who make the journey worthwhile.

Abhishek Singh
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 Whether Doctrinal or Non Doctrinal?

My research is purely doctrinal in nature. The researcher has attempted to understand the
topic with the help of various books and internet resources.

 Whether Primary or Secondary?

The research is totally based on secondary material as it is based on Text books, articles and
Internet research (secondary source).

 Analytical or Descriptive?

I have tried to be analytical in writing this project.

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this Project Report submitted to Prof. Pallavi Shankar at Chanakya National
Law University, in partial fulfillment of the course Labour Law II, is my original work and has
not been submitted in any other journal or essay competition in any meaning or format.

Abhishek Singh
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 4
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ 5
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7
AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION MECHANISM...................................................... 9
CONCILIATION .......................................................................................................................... 11
COURT OF ENQUIRY AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION ................................................ 14
ADJUDICATION ......................................................................................................................... 16
ARBITRATION ........................................................................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 21
 INTRODUCTION

In India the industrialization process started during the middle of the nineteenth century with the
British. In the beginning, industrial workers had absolutely no status and were indiscriminately
exploited. The work- men worked on nominal wages -for long hours, and under most unhealthy
working conditions. The Management style was authoritarian and exploitative. Labour
legislation during this period, when the workers had no bargaining capability vis-a-vis, the
employer, was enacted only to regulate labour, such as the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act
1859, the Workmen's (Disputes) Act 1860, which rendered workmen liable to criminal penalties
for breach of contract.1 Industrial Disputes legislation in India started with the enactment of the
Trade Disputes Act 1929 to regulate the settlement of labour- management disputes. It provided
for the establishment of courts of enquiry and boards of conciliation, for investigating and
settling trade disputes. This Act prohibited strikes and lockouts, without notice in public utility
services. The Second World War led the Government to introduce the DI Rules in January 1942.
Rule 81A of these Rules laid the historical foundation for the compulsory adjudication system in
India. These Rules also empowered government to make special orders prohibiting strikes or
lockouts, referring any dispute for conciliation or adjudication. The Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The main objective of the Act was-

 To make provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.

 To promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between
employer and employees.
 To prevent illegal strikes and lock-outs.
 To provide relief to workmen during lay-off or after retrenchment, wrongful dismissal or
victimization.
 To provide conciliation, arbitration and adjudication facilities

Industrial disputes tend to reduce economic profits and inflict damages on both employer and
employee side. Disputes pose problems for rationalizing labour and capital. Moreover, the industry
looses man-day per employee for the disputes. It also creates problem in the production and financial

1
K. K. Chaudhuri, “Changing Concept of 'Industry' under Industrial Disputes Act” Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 18, No. 22 (May 28, 1983), pp. M67- M69+M71+M74-M84
profit of the industry. This ultimately affects the economy of the country. Today most of the
countries especially, India, are dependent upon foreign investment and under these circumstances it
is necessary to keep some safeguards in the industrial laws as well as labour laws.
Therefore, maintaining industrial peace and harmony is important for a worker as it is for an
employer as it postulates the existence of understanding co-operation and a sense of partnership
between the employers and employees.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
 This project aims to develop an idea to critical anyalyse interpretation of the industrial
dispute act.
 The project also aims to evaluate the adjudication mechanism provided within the meaning of
the act.
HYPOTHESIS
The adjudication mechanism under the act is sufficient to safeguard the rights of the workers.
 AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION MECHANISM

The adjudicatory authorities, viz., Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals, as
provided under the Industrial Disputes Act are specialized Tribunals functioning outside the
hierarchy of ordinary courts and are entrusted with the task of adjudication of industrial disputes.
Although, mainly they have to adjudicate upon the disputes that are referred to them by the
appropriate Governments, in exceptional cases, the parties also may make application to these
bodies for adjudication of certain claims. The Chief objective ofthe I.D.Act is to ensure peaceful
settlement ofindustrial disputes through the compulsory adjudication method as an alternative to
strikes and lockouts, which are inherent in the process of collective bargaining. Compulsory
adjudication may be considered as the soul ofthe I.D.Act. Majority ofthe provisions of the
I.D.Act, as originally enacted, deal with the adjudication machinery and the related aspects.
Malthotra rightly commented, “the central theme of the Act is adjudication”2. By and large,
adjudication of disputes for bringing about a mandatory settlement is resorted to as the ultimate
remedy for disputes unsettled through negotiation or conciliation.

Since the adjudication of disputes is to be undertaken at the initiative of the Government, without
any regard to the consent of the parties to the disputes, it is considered as compulsory
adjudication, also known as compulsory arbitration in some jurisdictions, as for example in
Australia, where the system is very popular. Justice D.A.Desai very aptly described the nature
and philosophy of compulsory adjudication in his judgment in Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd
v. Hindustan Lever Ltd3 in the following words: “The concept of Compulsory adjudication was
statutory ushered in with a view to providing a forum and compelling the parties to resort to the
forum for arbitration so as to avoid confrontation and dislocation in industry. The Legislature
considered it wise to arm the Government with the power to compel the parties to resort to
arbitration with a view to avoid confrontation or trial of strength which are considered wasteful
from national and public interest point of view. For assuring uninterrupted production, peace and
harmony, industrial relations is necessary.” The main objective of the present work being to
assess and evaluate the efficacy of these adjudicatory authorities, this Chapter is devoted to a

2
Malhotra. O.P., The Law ofIndustrial Disputes, (1988), 5th ed. Vol. 1, p. 16.
3
(1984) Lab.I.C. 276 (286-87) (S.C.).
detailed critical study of their structures, the procedures, jurisdiction and the specific powers and
duties of these authorities.

A characteristic feature of society is a dispute. This is even more apt for an industrial society
where conflict regularly takes place. The biggest conflict of these is that between the capital and
labour. While it is possible to reduce and mitigate them, it is not practically possible to eliminate
them. Each has their own demands and wants that they want to be fulfilled. The inherent
inequality of an employment relationship places more power in the hands of employers and thus
the question of distribution of the social product that is the outcome of the common effort of
employers and workmen, the issue of the job security that is vital to an employee along with the
growing yet constant urge of the workmen to climb the success ladder are some of the important
factors that give rise to disputes in any industrial organization. Therefore, industrial disputes are
those which arise between an employer or an employer’s organisation on the one hand and the
workmen or trade unions of workmen on the other hand. These are on matters relating to an
employer-employee relationship.

It has been said by Mr Justice Higgins that “the war between the profit maker and the wage
earner is always with us; i.e., the war between those who argue for more investment and those
who argue for a maintained or improved standard of living now.”4

In view of this, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for four major industrial dispute
settlement machinery:

 Conciliation
 Court of Inquiry
 Voluntary Arbitration
 Adjudication

The following chapters will explore each mechanism in detail.

4
Kahn-Freund, Labour Relations and the Law (1983) (3rd ed.) (London, Stevens)
 CONCILIATION

Conciliation, a form of mediation refers to the act of making a passive and indirect effort in order
to bring two conflicting parties to a compromise. It is the “practice by which the services of a
neutral party are used in a dispute as a means of helping the disputing parties to reduce the extent
of their differences and to arrive at an amicable settlement of agreed solution.”

The conciliator or mediator tries to remove the difference between the parties by persuading the
parties to rethink over the matter with a give and take the approach but does impose his or her
own viewpoint. The conciliator is at liberty to change his or her approach from case to case as he
or she deems fit depending on other factors.

The method of conciliation is ancient. The International Labour Organisation has defined
conciliation as: "The practice by which the services of a neutral third party are used in a dispute
as a means of helping the disputing parties to reduce the extent of their differences and to arrive
at an amicable settlement or agreed solution. It is a process of rational and orderly discussion of
This method of resolving dispute through mediation and negotiation is not foreign in our
country. As time passed and the courts became overburdened with cases, conciliation started
gaining momentum. As soon as an industrial dispute arises or is expected to arise, a notice of
strike has to be given for a period of 14 days, after which and before the expiry of 6 weeks, a
strike can take place.5 On the receipt of such notice by the employer, the conciliatory bodies
come to play. The adjudication of any kind of industrial dispute has been kept out of the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts so that efforts may be made for settlement of such disputes
through the methods that have been prescribed by the Act, 1947.6 It is pertinent to mention that
the Appropriate Government7 plays a very important role in the settlement of any industrial
dispute as it is responsible for the constitution of all conciliatory and adjudicatory bodies.

5
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 22.
6
S.N. MISHRA, LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS 92 (27th ed., 2015).
7
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 2A.
Works Committee8 The main purpose of a Works Committee is to develop a sense of a
partnership between the employer and his workmen. The main duty of a Works Committee is to
safeguard the rights of the workers and to compose any material difference of opinion in respect
of matters carrying an interest that is common to both, employers and workmen. In Kemp and
Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen9, it was said that the duty of a Works Committee is to smooth away
frictions that arise in day to day work.

Grievance Settlement Authority10

This authority has been constituted for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual
grievances and the setting up of this authority does not affect the right of the workmen to raise
industrial disputes on the same matter under the provisions of the Act, 1947.11 Conciliation
Officer12 and Board of Conciliation21 If the Works Committee is not able to resolve the dispute,
the matter is passed on to a Conciliation Officer. The duties of a Conciliation Officer have been
dealt with under Section 13.13 Though a Conciliation Officer cannot direct the parties to act in a
particular manner nor give a final decision in the matter, he can attempt to secure agreement of
the parties for reference to voluntary arbitration14 and on failure of such attempt, he tries to
persuade them to agree to refer the dispute to adjudication by sending in a joint or separate
application for such a reference under Section 10(2)15 of the Act, 1947.

Reasons for Failure of Conciliation

1. Illiteracy and lack of understanding amongst the workers, especially those employed in
backward areas.

8
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 3.
9
(1955) I LLJ 48.
10
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 9C.
11
AVTAR SINGH AND HARPREET KAUR, INTRODUCTION TO LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW 74
(3rd ed., 2015). 21 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 5.
12
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 4.
13
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 13
14
Singh & Kaur, at 79-81.
15
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 10(2) -"Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner,
whether jointly or separately, for a reference of the dispute to a Board, Court Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal, the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party,
shall make the reference accordingly."
2. Lack of co-operation and sometimes, even opposition of the trade union leaders to the
constitution and functioning of conciliatory bodies.

3. Failure of reaching at a common consensus because of obstinacy. Also generally, workers do

not have faith in a body that is non-judicial in nature.

4. Copies of almost all demand charters, even if no involvement of the conciliation machinery is
in fact wanted by both the parties, are invariably sent to the conciliation officer. Sometimes,
there is also a pecuniary interest of the conciliation officer which hampers the entire process.16

16
Debi Saini, Compulsory Adjudication of Industrial Disputes: Juridification of Industrial Relations, 27(1) Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations (1991).
 COURT OF ENQUIRY AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

Court of Inquiry17

If there should be an occurrence of the disappointment of the conciliation procedure to settle a

question, the administration can choose a Court of Inquiry to enquire into any matter associated
with or significant to debate. The court is mandated upon to present its report inside of six
months and may comprise of at least one people to be chosen by the proper government. The
court of enquiry is required to present its report inside a time of six months from the initiation of
enquiry. This report is therefore distributed by the administration within 30 days of its receipt.
Not at all like amid the time of pacification, labourers’ entitlement to strike, businesses’
entitlement to a lockout, and bosses’ entitlement to reject labourers, and so forth stay unaffected
amid the procedures in a court to an enquiry. A court of enquiry is different from a Board of
Conciliation. While the Board’s basic objective is to promote the settlement of an industrial
dispute, a court of enquiry is primarily fact-finding machinery that aims at inquiring into and
revealing the causes of an industrial dispute.
Voluntary Arbitration18

On the disappointment of placation procedures, the conciliation officer may persuade the parties
to refer the dispute to a voluntary arbitrator wherein the arbitrator alludes to getting the question
settled since he is an autonomous individual picked by the parties included commonly and
willfully. As such, assertion offers an open door for an answer of the debate through an
authority together delegated by the gatherings to the question. The procedure of intervention
spares time and cash of both the gatherings which is generally squandered if there should be an
occurrence of settling. This form of voluntary arbitration became a popular method a settling
differences between workers and management due to the advocacy of Mahatma Gandhi, who had
himself applied it extremely effectively and successfully in the Textile Industry of Ahmedabad.
However, voluntary arbitration received legal identity only in 1956 when the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was amended in order to include a provision relating to it. This provision for voluntary
arbitration was provided keeping in mind the lengthy legal proceedings and formalities and

17
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 6.
18
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 10 a.
resulting delays that is involved in adjudication. But it is pertinent to note that the arbitrator is
not vested with any judicial powers. He only derives his powers to settle the dispute at hand from
the agreement entered into by the parties of opting to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. The
arbitrator is required to submit his award to the government who shall then publish it within 30
days of such submission, and the award shall be enforceable only upon the expiration of 30 days
of its publication. Intentional intervention is one of the most democratic ways for settling
industrial disputes and conflicts. It is the best technique for determining modern clashes and is a
reasonable and fair supplement to aggregate bartering. It not just gives an intentional technique
for settling industrial disputes, but on the other hand is a faster method for settling them. This is
because it depends on the idea of self-government in industrial disputes. Moreover, it abridges
the extended procedures orderly on arbitration, suggests a solid demeanour and a created
viewpoint; helps with fortifying the exchange union development and contributes for working up
sound and cheerful modern relations.19

19
Aarushi Chandak, Industrial Dispute Settlement Machineries, accessed at https://blog.ipleaders.in/industrial-
dispute-settlement-machineries/#_ftn1.
 ADJUDICATION

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 has observed:

“The adjudication machinery has exercised considerable influence on several aspects of

conditions of work and labour management relations. Adjudication has been one 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.”20

Labour Court (Section 7)21

The power of appointment of a Labour Court is vested with the Appropriate Government and it
may constitute one or more Labour Courts. The powers and duties of Labour Courts have been
dealt with under Sections 1128 and 1529, respectively. In Vijaya Bank v. Shyamal Kumar
Lodh,22 it was said that the Labour Court within whose local jurisdiction the establishment is
situated will have the jurisdiction to decide any dispute relating to subsistence allowance.
Industrial Tribunal (Section 7A)23 A Tribunal consists of one person only to be appointed by the
appropriate government. Only industrial disputes can be adjudicated upon by an industrial
tribunal.24 All machineries for adjudication of industrial disputes have been empowered with
powers and duties that would help facilitate smooth resolution of such dispute. In furtherance of
safeguarding the interest of workers, it has been held that the Industrial Tribunal deciding upon
the wage scale of the employees of an industrial establishment would have the discretion to grant

20
Government of India Gazette, 1969.
21
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 7. Section 11, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 11. 29 Section 15 Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, § 15.
22
(2010) 7 SCC 635.
23
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 7A.
24
Mukund Ltd v Mukund Staff Association, 2004 IL LJ 327.
ad hoc increase of salary as part of the revision of wages.25 Such machinery also has the power to
enforce contracts of personal service, to create contracts and to change contracts.26 National
Tribunal (Section 7B)27 Only Central Government can refer an industrial dispute for adjudication
to the National Tribunal, even if the Central Government is not the appropriate government. This
is the ultimate remedy for the settlement of an industrial dispute in case where the Labour Court
or tribunals and the conciliation machinery fail to bring about a settlement. Adjudication consists
of settling disputes through intervention by third party appointed by the government. About 90 to
95 per cent of disputes are referred to adjudication machinery on an average annually. However,
the functioning of adjudication machinery has not been very satisfactory, particularly because of
the delays involved and the inefficient implementation of the awards.28

Defects in the Present System of Adjudication Machinery

1. The proceedings at adjudication take unduly long period. About 50 to 60 per cent of the cases
are decided in more than a year, and 25% of the cases take between 6 to 12 months. The state of
implementation of awards (requiring implementation) is also not very commendable. 30 to 40
per cent awards are not implemented by the date of enforcement. Incomplete and abrupt
implementation of awards creates suspicion in the minds of workers and shakes their faith in the
machinery.

2. Adjudication has been the most popular measure of resolving disputes accounting for more
than 90 per cent of the disputes every year. However, adjudication is not a democratic method
and may create bitterness among the parties. It tends to encourage litigation and irresponsible
behaviour among employers and labour. The functioning of the adjudication machinery has, in
practice, been unsatisfactory.

3. Moreover, the implementation of the awards has been inefficient. Delays in implementation
erode the faith of workers in the adjudication machinery. 29 Adjudication is preferred more by

25
Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen, (1981) II LLJ 147.
26
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CP Sebastian, (2009) 14 SCC 360.
27
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 7B.
28
P. N. SINGH & NEERAJ KUMAR, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGEMENTS 290 (2010).
29
Debi Saini, Compulsory Adjudication of Industrial Disputes: Juridification of Industrial Relations, 27 (1) Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations (1991)- ase the tribunal awarded to workmen Dearness Allowance (DA) and 10% of
pay as annual increment. As expected, however, the employer went to the Supreme Court of India to challenge it,
employers who can afford to spend more on the legal proceedings.30 The dispute resolution
system as envisaged in the Industrial Dispute Act has projected itself as source of power.

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers national or state governments to constitute Labour
Courts, Tribunals, National Tribunals, Courts of Inquiry, and Boards of Conciliation. The
government has monopoly in the submission of industrial disputes to Conciliation Boards,
Courts, Tribunals or National Tribunals. Therefore, the Act provides only one voluntary method
by which employer and employee can solve their disputes, i.e., arbitration.31 Arbitration is less
formal than litigation. Voluntary arbitration32 (Section 10A) is a binding, adversarial dispute
resolution process in which the disputing parties choose one or more arbitrators to hear their
dispute and to render a final decision or award after an expedited hearing. Arbitrators with
specific knowledge bases can be appointed and they can be imbued with flexibility to judge,
based on a totality of the circumstances where pertinent.33 Further, such a move reduces the
probability of a dispute resulting in a strike or a lock-out.34 Industrial dispute resolution
mechanisms are now developed and designed with the mutual aim of securing social peace and
speeding up court settlements by relieving ordinary courts of the burden of labour disputes.
Timely dispute resolution ensures that disputes do no escalate into strikes while providing a
quick settlement in individual and collective rights dispute.35 Arbitration as envisaged under the

where by prolonging the case he could make the workmen settle at his terms and withdraw the case. As per the
settlement, the rate of increment was reduced to 5% of the pay.
30
Section 11, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 11.
31
Ahmad Ahsan And Carmen Pagés, Are All Labor Regulations Equal? Assessing The Effects Of Job Security,
Labor Dispute And Contract Labor Laws In India, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (2007).
32
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, § 10A .
33
Yasmine Tarasewicz & Niki Borofsky, International Labor and Employment Arbitration: A French and European
Perspective. Cristine Mihes, Strengthening the Mechanisms of Labour Dispute Prevention and Amicable Resolution
in the Western Balkan Countries and Moldova, International Labour Office (2009),
http://www.univie.ac.at/arbeitsrecht/php/get.php?id=1282 (last visited on September 24 2018.
34
ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law 349, 350 (2013).
35
Cristine Mihes, Strengthening the Mechanisms of Labour Dispute Prevention and Amicable Resolution in the
Western Balkan Countries and Moldova, International Labour Office (2009),
http://www.univie.ac.at/arbeitsrecht/php/get.php?id=1282 (last visited on September 24, 2018
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, provides for a cost and time effective, voluntary mechanism that is
tailored to the needs of the parties. As provided under Section 10A of the Act, 1947, the parties
must come together and mutually agree to submit their disputes to arbitration, by way of a
written agreement. This can be done at any time before the dispute has been referred to a Labour
Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal. In fact, removing disputes from the State court system
likely would lead to greater predictability; and the lack of a de novo appeal would help
streamline proceedings.36 Furthermore, in case of a labourer who is a foreign national, arbitral
awards would still be easily enforceable. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards,37 also known as the New York Convention that has more than 140
signatory countries and a ninety per cent successful enforcement rate around the globe, ensures
that arbitration awards have more legal certainty. The New York Convention also significantly
limits the grounds for refusing the enforcement of an arbitral award. Moreover, arbitration
proceeding is confidential in nature, thereby ensuring the privacy of both, employees and
employers. The privacy ensures that the reputations of both parties remain intact and it also
keeps the matter off public record. Such an advantage is important particularly when the dispute
has the potential to cause professional damage to high-ranking employees or risk endangering
the employer’s public image.38

36
Yasmine Tarasewicz & Niki Borofsky, International Labor and Employment Arbitration: A French and European
Perspective. Cristine Mihes, Strengthening the Mechanisms of Labour Dispute Prevention and Amicable Resolution
in the Western Balkan Countries and Moldova, International Labour Office (2009),
http://www.univie.ac.at/arbeitsrecht/php/get.php?id=1282 (last visited on September 24, 2018.
37
UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,
http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf. (Jan. 15, 2015)
38
Supra note 36.
 CONCLUSION

It is clear to see how arbitration can provide a viable dispute resolution options for industrial
disputes without hampering the economy or the employee-employer relation. It is imperative to
ensure that disputes are disposed of with utmost care and effectively. However, we see how
compulsory adjudication, which was created with the very purpose of empowering labourers, has
become as a power dispensation mechanism. A very similar fate is noticed with the conciliation
mechanism, which has utterly failed in its purpose. It therefore becomes important to utilise the
only voluntary system of dispute resolution, i.e. Arbitration.

The procedure, powers, and provisions with respect to the beginning of the award and time of
operation of an award of these three bodies are comparable and similar. The first two bodies may
be set up either by any State Government or by the Central Government. However the National
Tribunal may be set up only by the Central Government when it believes that the adjudication of
a dispute is of national significance. These three bodies are hierarchical in nature, and it is the
Government’s privilege to refer a question or dispute or conflict to any of these bodies relying
upon the nature of the conflict or dispute.

Thus, there exist several statutory ways to deal with Industrial Disputes and have been elucidated
upon above
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES
 All Answers ltd, 'Interpretation Of The Industrial Dispute Act' (Lawteacher.net, April
2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/employment-law/interpretation-of-
the-industrial-dispute-act-employment-law-essay.php?vref=1> accessed 24 April 2018
 Object and significance of Industrial Disputes Act 1947,
https://www.taxdose.com/object-and-significance-of-industrial-disputes-act-1947-act/.
 Judicial Intervention and Industrial Relations: Exploring Industrial Disputes Cases in
West Bengal by Supurna Banerjee and Zaad Mahmood Industrial Law Journal, Volume
46, Issue 3, 1 September 2017 https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dww035 Published on 01
March 2017.
 Compulsory Adjudication of Industrial Disputes: Juridification of Industrial Relations,
Debi S. Saini.
 Industrial disputes adjudication and settlement process and the role of voluntary
arbitration, shreya vajpei

BOOKS
 Labour and Industrial Laws, SN Mishra, 27th edition.

 Labour Laws, Avatar Singh.

 Labour and Industrial Laws, PK Padhi.

WEBSITES
• www.manupatrafast.com

• www.scconline.com

• www.legallyindia.com