INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND LEGISLATIONS Subject Code : 16MBA HR301

Number of Lecture Hours/Week: 03

Number of Lecture Hours: 56
Practical Component: 02 Hours/ Week

IA Marks :20
Exam Hours: 03
Exam Marks: 80
\
Course Objectives:
Object 1

• To enable students to understand and apply the principles of IR and develop an awareness
Object 2
Object 6
3
4
5

of the significance of industrial peace.

• To provide a conceptual basis of Industrial Relations.
• To give an understanding of the components and meaning of sustaining Industrial peace
anchored on harmonious Employee-Management relations.
• To discuss the various Industrial acts.
Course Outcomes:
The students should be able to
# Gain the insights of IR practices in the industry.
# Develop the knowledge related to employee-management relations
# Implementation of various industrial acts

PART A: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (32 hours)

Unit 1 (8 hours)
Introduction:
Background of Industrial Relations – Definition, scope, objectives, factors affecting IR, participants
of IR, importance of IR. Approaches to Industrial relations, system of IR in India –Historical
perspective & post-independence period, Code of Discipline and historical initiatives for
harmonious
IR, Government policies relating to labor, ILO and its influence on Legal enactments in India.

Unit 2 (8 Hours)
Collective Bargaining & Negotiation:
Collective Bargaining: Definition, Meaning, Nature, essential conditions for the success of
collective bargaining, functions of collective bargaining, importance of Collective Bargaining,
collective bargaining process, prerequisites for collective bargaining, implementation and
administration of agreements.
Negotiations-Types of Negotiations-Problem solving attitude, Techniques of negotiation,
negotiation
process, essential skills for negotiation, Workers Participation in Management

Unit 3 (8 Hours)
Trade Union
Trade Unions: Meaning, trade union movement in India, Objective, role and functions of the Trade
Unions in Modern Industrial Society of India, Procedure for registration of Trade Unions, Grounds
for the withdrawal and cancellation of registration, union structure, Rights and responsibilities of
TUs, Problems of trade unions, Employee relations in IT sector
Unit 5 (8 Hours)
Grievance procedure and Discipline management:
Grievance - Meaning and forms, sources of grievance, approaches to grievance machinery,
Grievance procedures, model grievance procedure. Disciplinary procedures, approaches to manage
discipline in Industry, Principles of Hot stove rule.

RECOMMENDED BOOKS:
• Employee Relations Management, P N Singh, Singh P. N., - Pearson Publications, 2011.
• Dynamics of Industrial Relations, Mamoria&Mamoria, Himalaya Publications, 2012
• Human Resource Management Principles & Practice, Aquinas, Vikas Publication.
• Personnel Management & Industrial Relations, Nair N G, Nair L, S. Chand Limited, 2001
• Essentials of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, Subba Rao, 3rd Revised
edition, Himalaya Publishing House, 2010.
REFERENCE BOOKS:
Industrial Relations, Trade Unions &Labour Legislation, P R N Sinha et al, Pearson Education,
2004.
• Bare Acts
• Industrial Relations and labor laws, ArunMonappa, RanjeetNambudiri, PatturajuSelvaraj, TMH,
1997.
• Industrial relations, trade unions and labor legislations, P R N Sinha, InduBala Sinha, Seema
PriyadarshiniShekar, Pearson Education, 2013, ISBN: 9788131731642

PART B:
Unit 5
INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATIONS
Only basic objectives and major provisions of the following legislations:
• Factories Act 1948,
• Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946
• Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948,
• Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
• Contract Labour Act,
• Shops and Establishments Act
• Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986
• Industrial disputes act of 1947 (24 Hours)

Unit 6
• Minimum Wages Act, 1948
• Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (8 Hours)
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972,
Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952;
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
Employees Compensation Act in 2013

NO PRACTICAL COMPONENT
RECOMMENDED BOOKS:
• Labor Laws for Managers, BD Singh, Excel Books, 2009
• Industrial Relations and Labor laws, SC Srivatava, 5th Edition, Vikas Publications.
• Elements of Mercantile Law - N. D Kapoor, Sultan Chand, 2004.
• Industrial Relations and Labour Legislations, Piyali Ghosh &ShefaliNandan, TMH.
• Labor Industrial Laws, Dr. V. G. Goswami, Eighth Edition, Central Law Agency, Allahabad
REFERENCE BOOKS:
• Industrial Relations, Trade Unions &Labour Legislation, P R N Sinha et al, Pearson Education,
2004.
• Bare Acts
• Industrial Relations and labor laws, ArunMonappa, RanjeetNambudiri, PatturajuSelvaraj,
TMH, 1997.
• Industrial relations, trade unions and labor legislations, P R N Sinha, InduBala Sinha, Seema
PriyadarshiniShekar, Pearson Education, 2013.
Unit 1 (8 hours)
Introduction:
Background of Industrial Relations – Definition, scope, objectives, factors affecting IR, participants
of IR, importance of IR. Approaches to Industrial relations, system of IR in India –Historical
perspective & post-independence period, Code of Discipline and historical initiatives for
harmonious
IR, Government policies relating to labor, ILO and its influence on Legal enactments in India.
Industrial Relations: Evolution and Growth in India
What is Industrial Relations?
1. The concept of industrial relations means the relationship between the employees and
management in the day to day working of an industry.
2. According to ILO international labor organization industrial relations deal with either
relationship between the state and employers‟ and workers organizations or the relations
between the occupational organizations themselves.

Nature of Industrial Relations

 Concerned with relationship of management and workers.
 To protect the interests of employees
 Concerned with systems, rules and procedures used by unions & employees
 Role of regulatory mechanism in resolving any industrial disputes.

Objectives of Industrial Relations

 To maintain industrial democracy based on participation of labour in the management and
gains of industry.
 To raise productivity by reducing tendency of high labour turnover and absenteeism.
 To ensure workers‟ participation in management of the company by giving them a fair say
in decision-making and framing policies.
 To establish a proper channel of communication.
 To increase the morale and discipline of the employees
 To safeguard the interests of the labour as well as management by securing the highest
level of mutual understanding and goodwill between all sections in an industry.
 To avoid all forms of industrial conflicts so as to ensure industrial peace by providing
better living and working standards for the workers.
 To bring about government control over such industrial units which are running at a loss
for protecting the livelihood of the employees.

Definition of Industrial Relations

Industrial relation is defined as relation of Individual or group of employee and employer for
engaging themselves in a way to maximize the productive activities.
In the words of Lester, “Industrial relations involve attempts at arriving at solutions between the
conflicting objectives and values; between the profit motive and social gain; between discipline and
freedom, between authority and industrial democracy; between bargaining and co-operation; and
between conflicting interests of the individual, the group and the community.
 The term ‘industrial relations’ has been variously defined. J.T. Dunlop defines industrial
relations as “the complex interrelations among managers, workers and agencies of the
governments”.
According to Dale Yoder “industrial relations is the process of management dealing with one
or more unions with a view to negotiate and subsequently administer collective bargaining
agreement or labour contract”.

The HR Employee Relations Manager directs the organization's employee relations function.
They develop employee relations policies and ensure consistent application of company policies
and procedures. In addition, they are responsible for employee dispute resolution procedures,
performing internal audits, and taking appropriate action to correct any employee relations issues.

Importance of Industrial Relations:

The healthy industrial relations are key to the progress and success. Their significance may be
discussed as under –

• Uninterrupted production – The most important benefit of industrial relations is that this
ensures continuity of production. This means, continuous employment for all from manager
to workers. The resources are fully utilized, resulting in the maximum possible production.
There is uninterrupted flow of income for all. Smooth running of an industry is of vital
importance for several other industries; to other industries if the products are intermediaries
or inputs; to exporters if these are export goods; to consumers and workers, if these are
goods of mass consumption.
• Reduction in Industrial Disputes – Good industrial relations reduce the industrial disputes.
Disputes are reflections of the failure of basic human urges or motivations to secure
adequate satisfaction or expression which are fully cured by good industrial relations.
Strikes, lockouts, go-slow tactics, gherao and grievances are some of the reflections of
industrial unrest which do not spring up in an atmosphere of industrial peace. It helps
promoting co-operation and increasing production.
• High morale – Good industrial relations improve the morale of the employees. Employees
work with great zeal with the feeling in mind that the interest of employer and employees is
one and the same, i.e. to increase production. Every worker feels that he is a co-owner of the
gains of industry. The employer in his turn must realize that the gains of industry are not for
him along but they should be shared equally and generously with his workers. In other
words, complete unity of thought and action is the main achievement of industrial peace. It
increases the place of workers in the society and their ego is satisfied. It naturally affects
production because mighty co-operative efforts alone can produce great results.
• Mental Revolution – The main object of industrial relation is a complete mental revolution
of workers and employees. The industrial peace lies ultimately in a transformed outlook on
the part of both. It is the business of leadership in the ranks of workers, employees and
Government to work out a new relationship in consonance with a spirit of true democracy.
 Both should think themselves as partners of the industry and the role of workers in such a
partnership should be recognized. On the other hand, workers must recognize employer’s
authority. It will naturally have impact on production because they recognize the interest of
each other.
• Reduced Wastage – Good industrial relations are maintained on the basis of cooperation
and recognition of each other. It will help increase production. Wastage of man, material and
machines are reduced to the minimum and thus national interest is protected.
Thus, it is evident that good industrial relations is the basis of higher production with minimum cost
and higher profits. It also results in increased efficiency of workers. New and new projects may be
introduced for the welfare of the workers and to promote the morale of the people at work. An
economy organized for planned production and distribution, aiming at the realization of social
justice and welfare of the massage can function effectively only in an atmosphere of industrial
peace. If the twin objectives of rapid national development and increased social justice are to be
achieved, there must be harmonious relationship between management and labor.

Objectives of Industrial Relations:

The main objectives of industrial relations system are:-

1. To safeguard the interest of labor and management by securing the highest level of mutual
understanding and good-will among all those sections in the industry which participate in
the process of production.
2. To avoid industrial conflict or strife and develop harmonious relations, which are an
essential factor in the productivity of workers and the industrial progress of a country.
3. To raise productivity to a higher level in an era of full employment by lessening the
tendency to high turnover and frequency absenteeism.
4. To establish and promote the growth of an industrial democracy based on labor partnership
in the sharing of profits and of managerial decisions, so that ban individuals personality may
grow its full stature for the benefit of the industry and of the country as well.
5. To eliminate or minimize the number of strikes, lockouts and gheraos by providing
reasonable wages, improved living and working conditions, said fringe benefits.
6. To improve the economic conditions of workers in the existing state of industrial
managements and political government.
7. Socialization of industries by making the state itself a major employer
8. Vesting of a proprietary interest of the workers in the industries in which they are employed.
Scope of IR:
Based on above definitions of IR, the scope of IR can easily been delineated as follows:
1. Labour relations, i.e., relations between labour union and management.
2. Employer-employee relations i.e. relations between management and employees.
3. The role of various parties’ viz., employers, employees, and state in maintaining industrial
relations.
4. The mechanism of handling conflicts between employers and employees, in case conflicts arise.
The main aspects of industrial relations can be identified as follows:
1. Promotion and development of healthy labour — management relations.
2. Maintenance of industrial peace and avoidance of industrial strife.
3. Development and growth of industrial democracy.
An industrial relations system consists of the whole gamut of relationships between employees and
employees and employers which are managed by the means of conflict and cooperation.
A sound industrial relations system is one in which relationships between management and
employees (and their representatives) on the one hand, and between them and the State on the other,
are more harmonious and cooperative than conflicting, and creates an environment conducive to
economic efficiency and the motivation, productivity and development of the employee and
generates employee loyalty and mutual trust.
Actors in the IR system: Three main parties are directly involved in industrial relations:
Employers: Employers possess certain rights vis-à-vis labors. They have the right to hire and fire
them. Management can also affect workers’ interests by exercising their right to relocate, close or
merge the factory or to introduce technological changes.
Employees: Workers seek to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. They
exchange views with management and voice their grievances. They also want to share decision
making powers of management. Workers generally unite to form unions against the management
and get support from these unions.
Government: The central and state government influences and regulates industrial relations
through laws, rules, agreements, awards of court ad the like. It also includes third parties and labor
and tribunal courts.
SCOPE: The concept of industrial relations has a very wide meaning and connotation. In the
narrow sense, it means that the employer, employee relationship confines itself to the relationship
that emerges out of the day to day association of the management and the labor. In its wider sense,
industrial relations include the relationship between an employee and an employer in the course of
the running of an industry and may project it to spheres, which may transgress to the areas of
quality control, marketing, price fixation and disposition of profits among others.
The scope or industrial relations is quite vast. The main issues involved here include the following:
1. Collective bargaining
 2. Machinery for settlement of industrial disputes
3. Standing orders
1. Workers participation in management
2. Unfair labor practices

FACTORS AFFECTING INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

It can be affected, broadly, by the following factors-

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
The organizational structure formalizes relationship within the
organization. It has geographical, hierarchical and operational
dimensions. Those dimensions, depending upon the size and nature,
complicate the relationship in terms of communication, conduct, control
and coordination.

The set of rules and procedures prescribed in the organization for

harmonious working and warmth in climate helps canalize efforts and
reduce discords/ conflicts. It provides roles for all the players in the
organization and their norms of behaviors.
Power distance and delegation of decision making also contributes to a
great extent towards maintenance of Industrial relations.

LEADERSHIP STYLE
 Behaviors and functional styles of the leaders in the organization bear a
great influence on the climate. Every leader, in his/her own unique way
influences the functioning of the formal structures by informal and formal
interventions.

A leader having reverence for his followers will develop team spirit if he
leads by example. Industrial climate is a very delicate factor that can be
destroyed easily but built with difficulty. It is as fragile as a glass bangle.
In the present times carrot is not so enticing and the stick not so
threatening in public organizations in India. 90

INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR
Industrial relations ultimately depend upon the individuals constituting
the organization because every individual is the creator of the climate
around him.
Individuals perceive situations differently at times as individuals and as
groups. Experience, exposure, skills, orientation, background,
achievement of individuals makes them behave differently in responding
to situations or in creating situations. 91

LEGAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

Industrial relations in an organization is effected by the legal and

constitutional framework which determine the rights and privileges,
powers and immunities, roles and domains, territories and boundaries of
the different players to Industrial relations.

In fact, rarely individuals or groups will give up their rights, and

dominance or authority to someone else. All over the world and also in
India, the system and structures for Industrial relations arose out of the
political necessity of governments to develop a good social order and
increase development and productivity.
Legislations were enacted and machinery created for the same. All
organizations have to adhere to the law and establish structures
accordingly.
How far they work it successfully depends upon the partners and their
interests. Organizations tend to influence this framework, as also
employees, to their own advantage. It includes, court, tribunals and
conciliators / arbitrators, agencies of the government. 92

TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The changes taking place in the technical and economic field puts
pressures on the organization and affects its operational and financial
strategies and employment and IR policies. 93

As a result of such pressures and changes, organization redefine their

work domains and costs, which in turn leads to changes in working
conditions, hours, compensation etc. and also in the employers mindset
of the degree of his willingness to accommodate the individual and
collective interest of the workers/ employees. Vis-a-vis the interest of
manager, employer and the organization as a whole.

Changes in technical and economic environment continuously affect the

attitudes, mindsets, strategies, mannerisms, elasticity and
accommodating spirit of the parties involved in Industrial relations.
The expectations of both the employer and employees from
each other also depend upon the employment situation in
the industry and outside. The expectations and their
fulfillment or non-fulfillment has a bearing on the
relationship. 94

ATTITUDES AND MINDSETS

The outcome of the Industrial relations process depends

upon the accommodating spirit and the synergetic effect of
the actions and behavior of the parties concerned towards
Industrial relations. How the negotiations and exchanges
take place depends upon the objectives, interests and attitude of the parties

to Industrial Relations.

❖ The attitude of management to employees and union.

❖ Attitude of employees to management.
♦> Attitude of employees to the union.

The attitudes towards negotiations and exchanges of the

various parties to Industrial Relations depend upon the
atmosphere of trust/ distrust prevailing between the
partners concerned. The atmosphere of trust -worthiness
depends on the following-

❖ Past history of employee /employer relations.

❖ Present and perceived strength of the unions/ workers.

❖ Strengths and weakness of management/ leadership.

❖ Threats to the organization and pressure on
management to deliver
❖ Sincerity and integrity of employee leadership,
❖ Effectiveness of managers and supervisors in dealing with problems
and disputes.

Existence of the single union or multiple unions and the discord/ tension
between all of them.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

1. Alternate Approach to the Study of Industrial Relations

2. Systems Approach to the Industrial Relation (Dunlop's approach)
3. The Pluralist Approach
4. The Marxist Approach
5. Sociological Approaches
6. Gandhian Approaches
7. Psychological Approaches
8. HRM-HRD Approaches
The need for Industrial Relations arose with the changes in social,
psychological and economic spaces of individuals, with the advent of the
Industrial Revolution. The establishment of large organizations, led,
amongst other things, geographical mobility of people, creation of the
working class, as different from the owner, new types of jobs, workplaces
and methods, creation of the manager, divested from ownership etc.

These changes resulted in new economic, social and cultural

relationships between the employees/workers and managers/ or owners.
The economic, social and cultural exchanges between the various actors
were generally based on certain premises of promises and expectations
either in the realm of economy, sociology, culture, or psychology.

The fulfillment or non-fulfillment of promises and expectations lead to

satisfaction/ dissatisfaction on one or more accounts in one or more
players towards one or more of the other players/ actors. A general lack of
agreement on the meaning of the term "industrial relations" has been
acknowledged for some time. Although ideology is seen as a powerful
influence on the behavior of industrial relations

practitioners, that is, those working or studying in the field, a general

imprecision surrounds the current terminology.95

The relationships therefore fluctuated on a cooperation-confrontation

dimension; the satisfaction/ dissatisfaction and cooperation/ conflict
affected the temperature (measuring tranquility/tension) in the
organization and by a multiplier effect, determining the temperature in
society.

In order to keep the temperature at a optimal level or to keep the

cooperation/ conflict climate of the industry in equilibrium, the state, in
different parts of the world, including India, intervened and introduced
laws for strengthening the week i.e. workers and to regulate the interaction
and boundaries of partners, to resolve conflicts and secure participation.
 Leaders of industry also took steps to take care of Industrial relations even
outside the compulsive realm of constitutional and legal structures.

However, only after World War II, which saw large-scale dislocations,
misery, shortages and curtailments, scholars started studying &
researching Industrial Relations as a subject of study.

Initially they viewed the Industrial Relations from the angle of their own
subject domain, and drew heavily from them.

Therefore, various scholars viewed Industrial relations and drew heavily

from different fields of study like psychology, sociology, economic, legal,
political and managerial. Later on scholars started viewing Industrial
Relations as a system and as a process.

But none of these gives a perfect view of Industrial Relations they

nevertheless enrich the appreciation and development of the subject.
Scholars have recently started viewing Industrial Relations from a holistic
and multi dimensional viewpoint. For instance, the economist would view
the relationship as that of wages and outputs in terms of supply and
demand. To the politician it might be appear as class war or vote bank.

Industrial relations therefore can be called an eclectic system

(Mamoria & Sanker 1998 Himalaya Publishing House -Dynamics of
Industrial Relation) composed of a group of people and
organizations working with varying viewpoints.
Contributions of various scholars, on Industrial relations and its associated
and sub fields, their concepts and thoughts, can be arranged in groups or
approaches for a better understanding.

2 SYSTEMS APPROACH TO INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS
(Dunlop's approach)
The systems approach views the Industrial relations as a system in itself with
the following elements -

Participants -The actors taking part in the Industrial Relations process.

There 3 actors.

❖ Workers and their organizations/representative ❖ Managers and

their organization/representatives
❖ The government and its specialized agencies for enactment and

implementation of laws, rules and policies.

❖ All the participants have their own, goals, interest's values and beliefs.

The Environment constituting the technological, economic and social

(power distribution) sub systems in which the organization operates.
The environment influences the relations between employer and
employee.
Ideology - All the participants have their own sets of beliefs and values,
which shape the interaction between them, and consequently the output
of such a relationship. In the words of Dunlop an ideology is a "set of
ideas and beliefs commonly held by the actors that helps to build or
integrate the system together as an entity".

The Structure - The structure consists of rules and procedures

established for the interaction of the actors in Industrial relations,
collective bargaining procedures, conflict resolutions and grievance
settlement practices.

In his book Industrial Relations system (1958) John T. Dunlop defines

the purpose of his book to "provide tools of analysis to interpret and
to gain understanding of the widest possible range of industrial
relations facts and practices. The theory attempts to provide tools of
analysis for interpretation and understanding of the widest possible
range of industrial relations facts and activities. The theory tries to
explain why particular rules are established in a particular industrial
relation system. The systems theory is divided into four inter-related
components namely: Actors; certain context; an ideology and a body of
 rules created to govern the actors at the place of work. His work
attempted,
for the first time at evolving a theoretical core of industrial relations
with a set of analytical tools. 96

According to Dunlop, his framework of industrial relations would be

applicable at three levels i.e.

❖ at the enterprise or plant level

❖ at the national level and
❖ in totality of economic development

He applied his framework to coal and construction industries and as a

national system equated it with the systems in Yugoslavia.

Dunlop defines an Industrial relations system as " at any one

time in its development is regarded as comprised of certain
actors, certain contexts and an ideology that finds the industrial
relations system together, and a body of rules created to govern
the actors at the workplace and the work community.
Dunlop's Industrial Relations system is an analytical enqw^; into the structure
and processes of the dynamics of relations between management, workers
and government. It can be viewed as an analytical subsystem of the more
general, total social system of an industrial society. 97

Dunlop also argues that while there is a conflict of interests, among the
actors, there is also a body of common ideas that each actor holds towards
the place and function of the actors in the system.

Some authors have criticized Dunlop's model on the following frailties -

❖ It concentrates on the structures and ignores the processes

❖ It does not take care of nature and development of conflict but tries to
take care of conflict resolution
❖ It focuses on the web of rules for formal interaction and ignores the

informal rules, processes and behavior

❖ It does not explain the process of conversion of inputs into outputs.

❖ It provides no articulation between the plant level and other

systems
❖ It makes no provision for the role of individual or their
personalities in industrial relations

While some criticism may be justified, not all sound convincing;

especially regarding the roles and values/ beliefs of individuals, which
Dunlop has taken into consideration, though not vehemently. 98

The system approach, according to many authors has the following

important features-

❖ Universality of character i.e. its applicability to all forms of human

relationships.
❖ Its adaptability and suitability to all types of organizations.
❖ Dynamism- study of continuously changing interactions.

Contributions of some other authors in the systems approach are

as follows:
HERBERT HANEMAN (1960)

Haneman advocated the application of the systems

approach to Industrial Relations. He studied the component and variables
of the Industrial Relations system and focused on the workers and
managers and their interactions at the workplace as the fulcrum of
Industrial relations.

ROBERT COX (1971)

In his work approaches to a futurology of Industrial relations (1971). Cox

identified different sets of systems of Industrial relations in organization
and related them to the type of environment for which they were suitable
or effective -

• The paternalistic system (Lord peasant

relationship)
• The master servant system (primitive market situation)
• Small industry system, (beginning of organized regulation)
• Life time commitment system
• Bipartite system with collective bargaining
• Tripartite system with collective bargaining and third party
intervention.
• Corporatist - bureaucratic system where employees and
workers' organization have some autonomy to decide issues at
their level.
• Mobilizing system where the dominant or elite players regulate
workers behavior.
• The socialist system with a contractual relationship between the
parties.

THE PLURALIST APPROACH

Flanders, Clegg and Fox are some of the important exponents of the
pluralist approach to the study of Industrial Relations.

This approach views the organization as consisting of different conflicting

interest groups or stakeholders like
employees, shareholders, consumer's community, managers,
government etc. It emphasizes on the need for management to regulate
and balance the interests and interaction of all the partners to Industrial
relations.

They view industrial relations as some sort of job regulation also, as

viewed in the systems approach.
Flanders (1970) evolved his pluralist approach to union
management relations drawing from the works of other preceding
authors and emphasized on the following aspects of Industrial
relations-
• Job regulation through rule making
• Involvement of trade union in job regulation
• Acceptance of trade union to have economic, social and political
purposes.
• Containment of conflict through institutionalization and regulation
of the structure and process of union management relations.
• Job regulation through collective bargaining

The institution of job regulation is characterized by Flanders as internal

and external. He considers the internal institutions as part of the Industrial
relation system and collective agreements as something external, since he
viewed unions as an external organization.

Clegg (1979) also advocated the pluralist approach but points out the
difference of power between the participants and the effect of such
difference on the result of bargaining.

The formulation of rules and the implementation of rules appear to be

central to Industrial relations.

He also attempted to compare Marxism and pluralism. Clegg deviated

from the approach of Flanders to trade unions and analyzed the role
of trade unions in the collective bargaining process.
Like Clegg, Fox (1971) also recognized an unequal power distribution
between the partners to Industrial relations. He differentiated between the
organization with unicentred authority and organizations with multiple
interest groups with legitimate authority (pluralist). 99

He said "unlike the pluralist, the radical does not see collective
organization of employees into trade union as restoring a balance of power
(or anything approaching it) between the propertied and the property less".
(Fox 1974).
100
The pluralist approach has been criticized for being too narrow to provide
a comprehensive framework for the analysis of Industrial relations. It
overemphasizes the significance of the process of collective bargaining
and gives insufficient weight to deeper psychological and social influences
on individual behavior. It gives importance to institutions and power
structures ignoring other facets of the environment.

The systems approach takes a wider look at rule making, whereas the
pluralist views it through the pigeonhole of collective bargaining only.
THE MARXIST APPROACH

All Marxist literature is based on the class conflict between haves and has
notes, between the controller and the controlled and between the exploiter
and the exploited. The Marxian approach to industrial relations, also,
therefore derives its strength from the class conflict analysis of industrial
relations. According to some Marxists, Industrial Relations are basically
market relations.

It views industrial relations as a struggle between worker and owners,

employer and employees, between capital and labour, with a view to exert
greater influence on each other. Lenin (1978) was of the view that social
democratic consciousness amongst workers will have to be brought from
outside i.e. the conviction to combine in unions, fight the employers and
strive to compel the government to pass necessary legislation.

But the Marxists viewed a broader role for the working class as a struggle
against all forms of exploitative structures and processes, to establish a
new social order.

We must take up actively, the political education of the working class and
the development of its political consciousness.

TROTSKY (1977) viewed that trade unions came into existence when
capitalism began to dominate the economic system. The trade unions
had the objective of "raising the material and cultural level of the
proletariat and the extension of its political rights. Capitalism can continue
to maintain itself by lowering the standard of living of the working class".
Under there conditions, trade union can either transform themselves into
revolutionary organizations or become lieutenants of capital in the
intensified exploitation of workers. Trotsky's analysis concludes that trade
union has become a tool at the hands of capitalist.

As was said, the trade unions now play, not a progressive but a
reactionary role. The workers say to themselves
that trade unions are bad but without them, it might be still worse.

This is the psychology of being in a blind Alley. He further viewed that the
trade union bureaucracy persecutes the revolutionary workers even more
badly.

Michel's, R (1959) came to the conclusion that few people exercise

control and decision-making in trade unions to the apathy (and
detriment) of individual rank and file membership.
Marx and Engel's (1970) have viewed the role of unions for protection of
interests of worker against injustice and high handedness of the employer
capitalist. In this view, the trade union is a power center to interact with
the center of legitimate authority for protecting and furthering the interests
of the workers.

According to Engel's, in all branches of industry, trade unions were

formed to protect the workingman against the tyranny and neglect of the
bourgeoisie. Their objects were to fix wages, to regulate the rate of
wages and to keep it uniform in each trade throughout the country.

Workers, through trade unions, should the least, protest against erosion
of their rights and privilege. Marx felt that although workers unite for
common goals, the goals do not remain common and conflict of interests
creeps in, but still some common interests still remain which keep them
together.

In this context Industrial relations is viewed as a class struggle but

with certain limitations as Marx says "Trade unions work well as
centers of resistance. They fail partially from an injudicious use of
their power."
HYMAN, R (1977) (Industrial relations - A Marxist introduction)
postulates that " An unceasing power struggle is therefore a central feature
of Industrial relations due to the inherent conflict of interests between the
employer / owner / manager and the employee/ worker, between the
controller and the controlled and the imbalance of power between the
groups."

Hyman defines power "as the ability of an individual or group to control

their physical environment and their ability to influence the decision taken
by others in their regard." FN Hyman redefined industrial Relations as the
'study of the process of control over work relations and among these
processes, those involving collective worker organization'.

Trade unions, according to Hyman 'represent workers' response to the

deprivations inherent in their role as employees within a capitalist
economy'. 'Trade unions are thus first and foremost a source and
medium of power' and processes of power are central to their integral
and external relations'.
Marxists hold that if Industrial relations is mere job regulation then why
do conflicts never cease. They hold that conflicts will never cease till
capital accepts labour as an equal partner and is prepared to share power.
He holds that the processes, which operate in reaching agreements, are
more important than the institutions established for the same.

5 SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH

A human being has been acknowledged to be a social animal and a

corporate organization in the eyes of law is a legal citizen. Organizations
are composed of human beings and deal with other organization and
institutions consisting of a different set of human beings.

Hence the interaction between institutions and organization, towards

furtherance of each other's goals and objectives, involves interaction
between human beings at different levels, as individuals and as
groups, big and small. Such interacting individuals and groups have
different personalities, emotions, skills, likes and dislikes, attitudes
and behavior, wants and needs, interests and desires which may, at
some stage and situations, be in conflict. The type of interaction and
relationship between them, the strength and fruitfulness of the
interaction will depend upon the value system, customs, norms,
attitudes, mindsets etc.
Study of Industrial relations can therefore be seen as as analysis of
individual and group behavior in the context of social dynamics, within
organizations. The sociological aspects of human relationships like
group dynamics, migration, family norms and status, stress and
strain, delinquency therefore affect industrial relations.

Constantly changing social equations, new relationships, institutions,

behavior patterns and similar influences shape the industrial relations. All
such complex changes are now being analyzed to study and fashion the
relationship to make it meaningful in the realization of the aspirations of
all the groups.

From the point of view of sociology, industrial relations is becoming more

complex and hence it calls for scanning of such factors both at macro and
micro level to deal with the dynamics of the system.

Weber, Max (1968) a well-known social scientist defined "sociology

as a service concerning itself with the interpretative understanding
of social action and thereby with a casual explanation of its course
and consequence." Recognition of diversity and its systematic
management is the key to future organizational survival and
success (Her riot, 1992). FN Diversity has major implications for
how people work together and what work means to them.
To study the organizational social dynamics we have to study the influence
of technical, economic, and political changes on the trade union structure
and process - the group and individual interests and behavior of workers -
we also need to study the relationship between the government, employers,
employees and their institutions, and how they together shape the totality
of the relationships. In this view, the sociological approach is very near,
philosophically, to the systems approach of Dunlop.
101

Conflict is inherent in human relations and cannot be ignored. In this

sense, this approach requires examinations of primarily, the causes of the
generation of conflict and disputes and their elimination, especially at the
plant or organizational level in relation to conflicts of distribution and
human relations.

6. GANDHIAN APPROACH

The father of our nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, himself a great

labour leader, carried his own, different approach towards employer-
employee relations.
He had great faith in the goodness of man and insisted on recognizing each
individual worker as a human being and in recognizing the rights of the
worker as well as the
employer/ owner. He believed in the concept of cooperation, non -violence
and trusteeship -Gandhiji laid great emphasis on mutual respect and
concern by the participants to Industrial relations. His philosophy entailed
peaceful coexistence of capital and labour and called for the resolution of
conflict in non-violent ways.

Gandhiji accepted the workers right to strike, but only in extreme situation
when employers fail to respond to all kinds of moral appeals. Even strike,
if it takes place should be peaceful and non violent.

He enunciated the principle of trusteeship, implying that the owner of

wealth is actually the custodian and keeps the wealth as a trustee of
society, to which it actually belongs, and the individual workers are
expected to be co-trustees too.

Gandhiji advocated the following rules to be observed for resolution of

disputes-
• Workers should seek redressale of reasonable demands only,
through collective action.
• If strike necessary it should be peaceful.
• Strikes to be resorted to when all measures have failed.
• If direct settlement fails, workers should resort to voluntary
arbitration.
• Means and ends are equally important. FN

V.V.Giri a former labour leader and President of India advocated mutual

settlement of disputes, collective bargaining and voluntary arbitration
instead of compulsory arbitration.

The Ghandhian approach is based on the premise of fair play and basic
goodness, of reasonable moral and ethical standards. Few scholars have
attempted to relate ethics and morality to the functioning of the Industrial
Relations system. 102

Good industrial relations can be maintained only when both labour and
management realize their moral responsibility in contributing to the said
task through mutual cooperation and greatest understanding of each other.

A tripartite study group, constituted at the behest of National commission

on labour observed that the labour management relations exist within the
social, economic and political structures of society.

"The goal of labour management relations may be stated as maximum

productivity, adequate understanding of employers, workers and
governments of each others roles, commitment to industry on the part of
labour and union both, sound unionism, efficient institutionalized
mechanisms for handling industrial disputes and willingness among the
parties to cooperate as partners in the industrial relations system.103

7 PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH

The psychologist study Industrial relations as an outcome of the

relationship between human beings in the form of worker, manager or
owner.

They hold the relationship to be arising out of fulfillment or non-fulfillment

of certain promises or expectation between the parties concerned (which
they connote as psychological contract) as a result of exchanges and
transactions taking place between them. They also view the problem of
industrial relations as deeply routed in the perception, attitudes, and
interest of the participants.

Mason Harei (1964) studied the perception and attitudes of "union leader"
and "Executives" by administering TAT (Thematic Apperception Test) to
both the groups and concluded. 104
Both view the individual person, (whether manager or worker) in a
different light when seen in the role of labour representative or manager.
(1) The management and labour see each other as less appreciatively
of others position.
(2) Labour & management see each other as less
dependable.
(3) Management and labour see each other as deficient in appreciating

the others need.

Difference of opinion, interest and lack of trust affect the resolution of

conflicts greatly. In many conflicts the personalities of the actors also play
dominant parts as also inter personal relations between the participants.

ROUSSEAU, DM (1989)
Rousseau worked on the written and unwritten psychological contracts in
organizations and how the contractual exchanges affect the attitudes and
 behavior of the employer towards the organization. She studied the
organizational, social and psychological meaning of contracts in
organization.

She held that the employment contract constitutes the mainstay of

employment relations, establishing an exchange of promises and
contributions between two parties: employer and employee, this concerns
the way the contract of employment is lived and breathed, the way it is
interpreted, understood and enacted on a daily basis as employee inter-
face with their workplace.

Rousseau (1995) (Psychological contract in organizations) writes about

'the individuals' belief in paid for promises, or a reciprocal obligation
between the individual and the employer. Thus she includes not only the
explicit expectations but also the implicit and perceived expectations,
which may also have a subjective connotation.

This can be through interpretations of past exchanges, learning through

others experiences as well as factors taken for granted (implicit or

perceived) like good faith and fairness.

Rousseau (1989), drawing on the work of Mac Neil (1985) also argued that
employment contracts involve, apart from the economic, relation based
agreements also, denoting mutual commitment of the parties.
This relationship is shaped by continual interaction. Industrial relations
also have a fair amount of subjectivity "when an individual perceives that
contribution he or she makes obligates the organization to reciprocate in
a certain manner and vice-versa, a psychological contract emerges."

To this extent, employment relations are a construct created by the

interpretation of what expectations, promises and actual exchanges
mean to individuals, groups and the organization.
Since employee relations are based on expectations, obligations and
exchanges between the individuals, between groups, and between the
employer and employee, it also involves socio-emotional consideration
of trust
and identification, which are easily breakable but extremely difficult to
restore. In the words of Rousseau (1989) it interjects a deeper emotional
component to the experience of inequity within a relationship.

Failed expectations can result in disappointment, whereas failed promise

can induce feelings of betrayal, anger, and injustice.

Rousseau (1995) further states that the obligations and expectations

of individuals with the organizations /employer (which forms the
psychological construct of Industrial relations) have a powerful
effect on their behavior.
FM Workers may perceive the environment and the exchanges within the
organization, differently as persons or collectively as members of a team,
trade or territory. Therefore, the organization's focus in providing the
context for a positive state of mind has to be not only towards individuals
but also towards groups of workers according to team, trade and territory.

Here, the employees are not seen to be contracting with a employer but
rather their exchanges and relationships are to be studied in terms of
'organizational representatives' in place of employer, because in present
day context, there will be few 'homogenous' entities, entitled to be called
employer.

According to Rousseau, psychological contracts can have two

relationships.

• Transactional
• Relational

Transactional includes, tasks wages etc. & Relational include

involvement, interdependence, social and inter personal relations
the transactional component denotes task and compensation while
Relational denotes 'partnership.'
It was found in a study on newly recruited MBA, that the relational
orientation was related to the type of relationship the employee sought
with the employer (depending upon their interests). In the context of post
liberalization changes this can be a guide in the retention policy of
organizations and also in maintenance of Industrial relations.

Hall (1993) found that a mix of the two might be needed by organizations
as per their size, operations and other requirements.

Mill word and Hopkins (1998) constructed a 32-item scale to measure

relational and transactional aspects of the relationship.

Mill word and Hopkins (1978) found that relational subscale was
significantly more linked with permanent, long-term employment, contrary
to transactional subscale. Relational subscale was also found to be
correlated with job and organizational commitment and also with job and
organizational commitment and also with the willingness to go that extra
mile for the organization.

These findings attempt to establish a linkage between relational

issues and affective commitment, identification and integration, as
also the transactional and integration, as also the transactional
issues and work identification / integration, low affective
commitment and easy exit.
Robinson (1995) measured 7 features of employment (as pay, promotion
etc.) as

• Obligations and
• Expectations

He found that beliefs (in regard to extent of each obligation) contributed

independently and substantially to the prediction of trust, commitment
and satisfaction, than non- promissory expectations.
Individual and collective responses of employees towards
organizational demands are also affected by the perception of
employee, towards expectations and promises, which they perceive
to be unfulfilled or violated. This may result from lack of proper
communications, misperception, inadvertent breaches and stark
betrayals. The intensity of such perceptions and the veracity of
reactions to them may be compounded or moderated by the human
relations scenario in the organization including faith, confidence
and trust.
Robinson and Rousseau (1994) found in a study that 55% respondents
reported such violations in one year of employment and that occurrence of
violation correlated positively with employee turnover, and negatively with
trust, satisfaction and intention to stay with the organization.

Griffin, Kelly and Collins (1995) reported decline in loyalty due to

breaches of expectations and promises. Tyler & Bies (1979) reported
increase in litigation.

Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau (1994) state that when employees perceive
that their long term expectations for personal growth increase in pay, better
working conditions etc. have not been honored they may react with anger,
exit or withdrawal. For many employees, compulsory relocation or job
change, threats of redundancy and intensified workloads, will have been
construed as fundamental violations of long-term reciprocity.

Other contributors to this approach are Levinson (1962), Schein

(1980), Herriot and Reilly (1998), Sparrow (1998), & Farnsworth
(1982)
There has also been some criticism of this approach. Arnold (1996 pointed
out the confusions concerning the role of promises and expectations in a
relationship and their validity. Guest (1999) pointed out that transactional
and relational dimensions are more theoretical then empirical and it gives
little consideration to dimensions of time and space.
Herriott and Pembereton (1997) argue that a process view of employee /
employer relationship may be more fruitfully adopted in studying the
operationalization of employer /employee relationship than the contents
focused approach of psychological contracts.

They argue that a process perspective on relationship enable us to describe

a current relationships between employer and employee because of the 2
way relationship between them.

The entire gamut of transactions, relations and exchanges and

expectations between employer and employee has a dynamic influence
on organizational behavior, performance, managerial and operational
decisions, relationship between employer and employee and the
management of Industrial relations.
We have examined some literature on the content focus of the
employer /employee relationship. Lesser-published work could be found
on the process focus of such relationships.

8. HRM -HRD APPROACH

The human relations approach to the study of industrial relations lays

stress on the policies and techniques to improve employee morale,
efficiency and job satisfaction.

It encourages small work-groups to exercise considerable control over its

immediate environment. The human relations school was founded by
Elton Mayo and later, propagated by Roethlisberger and others.

When human resources are not properly managed the problem of human
relations surface. It can be managed by appreciating the dynamics of
human behavior,
both at individual and group level. This approach tends to satisfy
individual and collective needs of workers - economic,
physiological, safety, security, social and psychological, as a step
to harmonies the interactions and exchanges at the workplace.

However, the level of satisfaction, motivation and commitment will depend

upon the health of the organization, the systems, the style of leadership
and cooperation - coordination between employer and employees.

In this approach every organization will need a specific diagnosis of

industrial relations that may be constituted of one or more elements
discussed above in a ratio, specially suited to the organization. In this
spectrum, the unions are envisaged to function as partners in the pursuit
of progress of the organization, and come closer to the managerial
function of HRD-HRM.

Guest & Hoque (1993) postulate that shift in collectivism and human
resource management might constitute a new format for employee
relations in certain specific contexts.

In this approach we see the gradual transition of industrial relations.

With the gradual erosion of the institutions of institutional
framework of industrial relations (Purcell 1993) the concept of
employee relations is fast emerging.
Here, the predominant concern is no longer about the role
of collective bargaining and the union as its agent as about
securing employee assent and exploring managerial commitment to
achieving that assent, though the role of unions is not altogether
abrogated, but it is relegated as a instrument of HRD, as a partner
towards organizational effectiveness playing a part within the overall HR
scenario and not juxtaposed to management and government.

It covers the development related to the coverage of non-unionized

worker, along with unionized, and the white collar along with blue-collar
worker. (Blaydon and Turnbull-
1993).
 According to them the creation of an economic surplus, the indeterminate
nature of exchange relationship and the asymmetry of power, not the
institution of trade union or Government agencies make the subject
matter of employee relations distinctive.

In the HRM -HRD approach managements reach out to the

employees with or without union, through development oriented
initiatives while strategically keeping the organizational interests
paramount.
There is evidence to suggest that in the Indian context also, initiatives of
this nature, under the banner of HRD movement is attempting to a give a
development thrust though reforms in performance, care, training and
development systems, communication and grievance redressal (Joseph
1995). Kochan, Mckersie and Capelli (1984) not only suggested the
importance and usefulness of influencing the process of collective
bargaining and the workplace by strategic interventions but also how the
social and psychological, technological changes at the work place may
determine strategic decision in the realm of HRM.

One of the earliest proponents of this approach, who unfortunately does

not find mention in studies of Industrial relations, is Barnard.

Barnard C, (1938) (the functions of the executive) argues that

individual is the fundamental strategic factor in organizations.
Natural cooperation as inherent in human nature was largely
responsible for the success or failure of business ventures.
Therefore, organizations must make positive efforts to create a
conducive environment to induce workers to cooperate. The test of
efficiency of any organization in his view is the ability to "elicit
sufficient individual wills to cooperate."

This, he argues can be done by changing the state of mind. Further he

states, such changes involve tangible and intangible, material and
psychological compensations, participation, personal fulfillment and working
environment.
 This should be coupled with some degree of persuasion e.g. propaganda,
rhetoric argument or even some amount of coercion.

Barnard also argues that the nature of such exchange will need to undergo
continual adjustment and change, due to changing individual requirement
and states of mind.

Industrial relations, in his view must be conceptualized, studied and

systematically managed like -

• A process of exchange
• Character and dynamics of exchange relationship Consideration

of need of both employer and employee.

Industrial Relations in India: An Overview

IR is dynamic in nature. The nature of IR can be seen as an outcome of

complex set of transactions among the major players such as the

employers, the employees, the trade union, and the state in a given

socio-economic context. In a sense, change in the nature of IR has

become sine quo non with change in the socio-economic context of a

country.

Keeping this fact in view, IR in India is presented under the following two sections:
1. IR during Pre- Independence
2. IR during Post-Independence

1. IR During Pre-Independence:
The structure of the colonial economy, the labour policies of colonial government, the ideological
composition of the political leadership, the dynamics of political struggle for independence, all
these shaped the colonial model of industrial relations in pre-independent India”. Then even union
movement was an important part of the independence movement.
However, the colonial dynamics of the union movement along with the aggressiveness of alien
capital, the ambivalence of the native capital and the experience of the outside political leadership
frustrated the process of building up of industrial relations institutions. Other factors like the
ideology of Gandhian class harmony, late entry of leftists and the bourgeois character of congress
also weakened the class approach to the Indian society and industrial conflict”.
Till the Second World War, the attitude of the colonial government toward industrial relations was a
passive regulator only Because, it could provide, that too only after due pressure, the —um of
protective and regulative legal framework for industrial relations Trade Union Act 1926 (TL A)
Trade Disputes Act 1929 (TDA). It was the economic emergence of the Second World War that
altered the colonial government’s attitude on industrial relations.

The state intervention began in the form of introduction of several war time measures, viz. the
Defense of India Rules (Rule 81- A), National Service (Technical Personnel) Ordinance, and the
Essential Service (Maintenance) Ordinance As such in a marked contrast to its earlier stance, the
colonial government imposed extensive and pervasive controls on industrial relations by the
closing years of its era-. Statutory regulation of industrial relations was on plank of its labour
policy. The joint consultative institutions were established primarily to arrive at uniform and
agreeable labour policy.
The salient features of the colonial model of IR can be summarized as close association between
political and trade union movement, dominance of ‘outsiders’ in the union movement, state
intervention and federal and tripartite consultations.
The eve of Independence witnessed several instances that served as threshold plank for IR during
post Independence era. The prominent instances to mention are passing of Indian Trade Unions
(Amendment) Act, 1947, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, Bombay Industrial
Relations Act, 1946, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and split in AITUC and formation of
INTUC.

2. IR During Post-Independence:
Though Independent India got an opportunity to restructure the industrial relations system the
colonial model of IR remained in practice for sometimes due to various reasons like the social,
political and economic implications of partition, social tension, continuing industrial unrest,
communist insurgency, conflict, and competition in the trade union movement. In the process of
consultation and confrontation, gradually the structure of the industrial relations system (IRS)
evolved.
State intervention in the IRS was a part of the interventionist approach to the management of
industrial economy. Several considerations like unequal distribution of power in the labour market,
neutrality of the state, incompatibility of free collective bargaining institution with economic
planning etc. provided moral justification for retaining state intervention in the IRS. State
intervention in the IRS is logical also when the state holds large stakes in the industrial sector of the
economy.
However state intervention does not mean suppression of trade unions and collective bargaining
institution. In fact, state intervention and collective bargaining were considered as complementary
to each other. Gradually, various tripartite and bipartite institutions were introduced to supplement
the state intervention in the IRS.
The tripartite process was considered as an important instrument of involving participation of
pressure groups in the state managed system. Non formal ways were evolved to do what the formal
system did not legistate, for one reason or other.
The political and economic forces in the mid 1960s aggravated industrial conflict and rendered non-
formal system ineffective. In the process of reviewing the system, National Commission on Labour
(NCL) was appointed in 1966.
Now the focus of restructuring shifted from political to intellectual. However, yet another
opportunity was lost when there was an impasse on the NCL recommendations in 1972. The Janta
Government in 1978 made, of course, a half-hearted attempt to reform industrial relations.
Unfortunately, the attempt met with strong opposition from all unions. The BMS, for example,
termed it as “a piece of anti-labour, authoritarian and dangerous legislation””.

Several committees were appointed to suggest measures for reforming die IRS. In the process,
tripartism was revived in 1980s. Government passed the Trade unions and the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Bill, 1988. But, it also proved yet another legislative disaster. The bill was severely
criticised by the left parties. It was even viewed by some as a deliberate attempt to destroy
“autonomous; organised or militant trade union movement”.
In consequence, the tripartite deliberations held at the ILC in 1990 decided three measures to
reform IR in India:
(i) To constitute a bipartite committee of employers and unions to formulate proposals for a
comprehensive legislation;
(ii) To withdraw the Trade Union and the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 1988
(iii) To consider the possibility of formulating a bill on workers’ participation in management, 1990.
In the 33rd session of ILC, another bipartite committee was constituted to recommend changes in
the TU and ID Acts. The government introduced a Bill on Workers, Participation in Management in
Parliament in 1990
Thus, the striking feature of the history of IR in India has been that it is dynamic in nature.
Particularly since 1991 i.e., the inauguration of liberalization process, die IR in India is marked by
new challenges like emergence of a new breed of employees (popularly termed as ‘knowledge
workers’), failure of trade union leadership, economic impact, and employers’ insufficient
response”.

ILO in India

Provides an overview of ILO in India

India, a Founding Member of the ILO, has been a permanent member of the ILO Governing Body
since 1922. The first ILO Office in India started in 1928. The decades of productive partnership
between the ILO and its constituents has mutual trust and respect as underlying principles and is
grounded in building sustained institutional capacities and strengthening capacities of partners. It
has a two-directional focus for socio-economic development: overall strategies and ground-level
approaches.
The ILO's overarching goal is Decent Work, i.e., promoting opportunities for all women and men to
obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity. DW is at
the heart of ILO's strategies for economic and social progress, central to efforts to reduce poverty
and a means to achieve equitable, inclusive and sustainable development India's 11th Plan's vision
of faster and inclusive growth through a process which yields broad-based benefits and ensures
equality of opportunity for all – with a strong emphasis on decent working and living conditions for
all. A number of India's 11th Plan targets are in consonance with the DW agenda.
The DW concept is translated into Decent Work Country Programmes (DWCPs), prepared and
adopted by the tripartite constituents and ILO, at country levels. The DWCP-India (2007-12),
aligned to the 11th Plan and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, focuses on 3
priorities.
Priority 1: Opportunities enhanced for productive work for women and men, particularly for
youth and vulnerable groups, especially through skills development;
Priority 2: Social protection progressively extended, particularly in the context of
informalization;
Priority 3: Unacceptable forms of work progressively eliminated.
The cross-cutting issues are special focus while implementing the DWCP under the three priority
areas are:
(a) Social dialogue and strengthening of partners;
(b) Informal economy; and
(c) Gender equality.
ILO's current portfolio in India centers around child labour, preventing family indebtedness
employment, skills, integrated approaches for local socio-economic development and livelihoods
promotion, green jobs, value-addition into national programmes, micro and small enterprises, social
security, HIV/AIDS, migration, industrial relations, dealing with the effects of globalization,
productivity and competitiveness, etc.
The Decent Work Technical Support Team (DWT) for South Asia stationed in New Delhi, through
its team of Specialists, provides technical support at policy and operational levels to member States
in the sub-region.