V(a) to take surrounding facts and existing local usage and customs into consideration,

(b) make proposals for the settlement,

(c) formulate terms of a possible settlement,
(d) reformulates the terms, these all power distinguishes conciliator from mediator but generally
unlike arbitrator, conciliator does not have decision making power. The difference lies in the fact
that the ‘conciliator’ can make proposals for settlement, ‘formulate’ or ‘reformulate’ the terms of a
possible settlement while a ‘mediator’ would not do so but would merely facilitate a settlement
between the parties. However, in India Family Courts Act-1984 confers decision making on the
presiding officer of the Court who is called as conciliator.

The process of conciliation is widely used as an alternative mechanism of alternative dispute

resolution. For example Sec 4 and 5 of Industrial Dispute Act provides for Conciliation officer and
Board of Conciliation. Tough conciliation acquired statutory recognition in India, their efficacy in
resolving disputes or arriving at the settlement is negligible. Nothing significant has been achieved by
giving statutory recognition to this mechanism, rather a waste of State resources and hurdle to the
disputant parties in the way of choosing appropriate forum of redressal.

During 1959-66 the percentage of dispute settled by Conciliation Machinery varied from 57% to 83%
in the central sphere. During 1988, 10,106 disputes were referred to conciliation out of which the
number failure report received was 3,183 in the Central sphere. From period 1990- 2000, in 39, 521
labour disputes conciliation proceedings were held out of which only 10,985 were successfully
settled. The statistics of the working of the conciliation machinery reveals that it made no
remarkable success in India. Number of reference themselves speak efficacy of Conciliation we have
Corers of Cases pending but references are in thousands. For the failure of this mechanism there are
several reasons,

(a) Lack of proper personnel, inadequate training and low status enjoyed by conciliation officer and
too frequent transfer.
(b) Undue emphasis on legal and formal requirements.
(c) Considerable delay in conclusion of conciliation proceedings.
(d) Lack of adjudicating authority with conciliator.
(e) Failure of conciliation had much impact as failure leads to reference of dispute to Labour Courts
and Tribunals.
(f) Failure to magnetize people as there are little differences in environ of Courts and Conciliation
Board(s).

2.2.3. Arbitration
Arbitration is a quasi-judicial process in which a neutral person sits as a private judge and resolves
the dispute of the parties in confidential manner. “Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution
of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons such
as the ‘arbitrators’, ‘arbiters’, or ‘arbitral tribunal’, by whose decision the award they agreed to be
bound”. Arbitration is a binding method of dispute resolution governed by statute. It is a traditional
‘alternative’ to court-based litigation.The appointed arbitrator considers the evidence presented by
both parties and then issues an award, which is enforceable by the courts – in some countries it is
even enforceable without court decision. Procedures used in arbitration can range from informal to
rules which essentially mirror court procedures.

In India arbitration was originally governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The