PGDM III SEMESTER

Session 2022-23
PGDMHR01 – Industrial Relations & labour laws

Date of Assignment: ………………2022 Date of Submission: …………… 2022

CO evaluated: CO3, CO3 Max Marks: 10

CASE STUDY 1 – Labour Disputes
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 Works 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.

Ques: Summarize the case and justify the decision taken by Works Manager. Also if you don’t
agree with the same, give your statements and justify.