Dear Colleagues When does the conciliation proceeding is treated as commenced under Industrial Dispute Act. Regards Nirmal
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the date on which the dispute is referred to the conciliation officer. Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
4510From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute without delay, investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.
The report is to be submitted to the appropriate government. A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such a shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate government.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The report is to be submitted to the appropriate government. A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such a shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate government.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
I am not sure whether this question occurred to you out of mere academic curiosity or because of any practical issue connected with some industrial dispute concerning your organization. Whatever the reason, the answer to your question is very important to every HR manager and trade union leader, as its widespread ramifications can affect industrial relations further.
The brief answer given by Mr. Madhu indicates the commencement of conciliation to the reference of the dispute by any one of the parties to the dispute, whereas Mr. Aditya's elaborate reply, though it covers more of the duties of the Conciliation Officer, just touches on its commencement to an earlier stage of apprehension of the dispute. In one way or another, both are correct from practical points of view emanating from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So, I may be kindly excused for demanding more of the precious time and focused attention of keenly interested people like you.
We don't find any statutory definition for the term "conciliation" in the I.D. Act, though it defines terms such as "Conciliation Officer" [2(d)], "Conciliation Proceeding" [2(e)], etc., associated with the term. Therefore, if we resort to dictionary meanings, we will find "to make compatible," "to reconcile," "to pacify," all invariably pointing to the act of intervention and mediation by a third party in a dispute. So, in general, the involvement of a third party in a dispute presupposes the reference of it by anyone or all the disputants, as mentioned by Madhu. But, when the third-party intervention assumes a statutory flavor by operation of law, the apprehension theory comes into foreplay, as indicated by Aditya, of course, in certain situations.
When the statutory meaning of the phrase "Conciliation Proceeding" is conjunctively read with the definition of the term "industrial dispute" [2(k)], its precision becomes all the more difficult. A dispute in an industry need not necessarily always partake the character of an industrial dispute. So, any number of references by the parties or a proactive apprehension by the Conciliation Officer of such a non-industrial dispute cannot warrant the initiation of conciliation proceedings defined in the Act. Therefore, two schools of thought exist as to the exact commencement of the conciliation proceeding. For convenience's sake, let's call them the first and second schools of thought. The first one places its reasoning on the definition of conciliation proceeding and holds that any formal notice of intervention marks the commencement of conciliation proceedings. The second school of thought places its reasoning on the preamble of the Act and the definition of the term industrial dispute and holds that whatever is done by the Conciliation Officer prior to the issue of notice under Sec. 12(1) as preliminary inquiry or investigation is to assess the necessity of embarking upon conciliation, and the conciliation proceeding before him commences exactly on the date fixed by him in the notice issued u/s 12(1).
Keeping this aside, let us conclude the answer as follows with the aid of the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act that deals with the commencement and conclusion of proceedings:
(1) Insofar as a public utility service concern is concerned, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the date a notice of strike or lockout u/s. 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of reference to the Board of Conciliation.
(2) Regarding any dispute in a non-public utility service concern, conciliation proceeding by a conciliation officer commences exactly on the date mentioned in his notice issued u/s. 12(1), including the case involving the issuance of a notice of strike or lockout. In the case of a Board, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the very date of reference by the Appropriate Govt u/s. 10(1)(a).
Regards.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
The brief answer given by Mr. Madhu indicates the commencement of conciliation to the reference of the dispute by any one of the parties to the dispute, whereas Mr. Aditya's elaborate reply, though it covers more of the duties of the Conciliation Officer, just touches on its commencement to an earlier stage of apprehension of the dispute. In one way or another, both are correct from practical points of view emanating from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So, I may be kindly excused for demanding more of the precious time and focused attention of keenly interested people like you.
We don't find any statutory definition for the term "conciliation" in the I.D. Act, though it defines terms such as "Conciliation Officer" [2(d)], "Conciliation Proceeding" [2(e)], etc., associated with the term. Therefore, if we resort to dictionary meanings, we will find "to make compatible," "to reconcile," "to pacify," all invariably pointing to the act of intervention and mediation by a third party in a dispute. So, in general, the involvement of a third party in a dispute presupposes the reference of it by anyone or all the disputants, as mentioned by Madhu. But, when the third-party intervention assumes a statutory flavor by operation of law, the apprehension theory comes into foreplay, as indicated by Aditya, of course, in certain situations.
When the statutory meaning of the phrase "Conciliation Proceeding" is conjunctively read with the definition of the term "industrial dispute" [2(k)], its precision becomes all the more difficult. A dispute in an industry need not necessarily always partake the character of an industrial dispute. So, any number of references by the parties or a proactive apprehension by the Conciliation Officer of such a non-industrial dispute cannot warrant the initiation of conciliation proceedings defined in the Act. Therefore, two schools of thought exist as to the exact commencement of the conciliation proceeding. For convenience's sake, let's call them the first and second schools of thought. The first one places its reasoning on the definition of conciliation proceeding and holds that any formal notice of intervention marks the commencement of conciliation proceedings. The second school of thought places its reasoning on the preamble of the Act and the definition of the term industrial dispute and holds that whatever is done by the Conciliation Officer prior to the issue of notice under Sec. 12(1) as preliminary inquiry or investigation is to assess the necessity of embarking upon conciliation, and the conciliation proceeding before him commences exactly on the date fixed by him in the notice issued u/s 12(1).
Keeping this aside, let us conclude the answer as follows with the aid of the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act that deals with the commencement and conclusion of proceedings:
(1) Insofar as a public utility service concern is concerned, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the date a notice of strike or lockout u/s. 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of reference to the Board of Conciliation.
(2) Regarding any dispute in a non-public utility service concern, conciliation proceeding by a conciliation officer commences exactly on the date mentioned in his notice issued u/s. 12(1), including the case involving the issuance of a notice of strike or lockout. In the case of a Board, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the very date of reference by the Appropriate Govt u/s. 10(1)(a).
Regards.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
Our contributing members have already expressed their views in this thread on your query. As Mr. Umakanthan rightly said, there is no specific definition of Conciliation as stipulated in the Industrial Disputes Act. Conciliation involves resolving disputes between employees and employers that could not be sorted out directly. These disputes are referred to the Labour Officer, who will facilitate a resolution by bringing the two parties together. This may include disputes related to salary, bonus denial, refusal of legally entitled payments, or any other demands.
The conciliation proceedings commence on the date you file a complaint with the Labour Officer. The Conciliation Officer will document the proceedings, and a final order will be issued.
Regards,
Adoni Suguresh
Labour Laws Consultant
From India, Bidar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The conciliation proceedings commence on the date you file a complaint with the Labour Officer. The Conciliation Officer will document the proceedings, and a final order will be issued.
Regards,
Adoni Suguresh
Labour Laws Consultant
From India, Bidar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
yes it is the day the dispute is referred to the conciliation authority
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have a question here. If a union or group of workers gives notice to the company that they are planning to go on strike after two weeks due to some issues or demands, what should be done if the management ignores that notice and does not want to consider it? The management's stance is to let the workers go on strike, stating that they will not accept their demands at all.
Possible Solutions for Ignored Strike Notices
If the workers fail to inform the conciliation officer about the planned strike, what would be the solution in such a scenario? What actions can HR take in this situation?
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Possible Solutions for Ignored Strike Notices
If the workers fail to inform the conciliation officer about the planned strike, what would be the solution in such a scenario? What actions can HR take in this situation?
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, the present-day HR Department and the erstwhile Personnel Department are part and parcel of the same impersonal entity called "the Management," which fortunately retains its name and responsibilities without any significant changes to this day. However, the renaming of the erstwhile "Personnel Dept" as "HR Dept" is not for fancy's sake like calling a salesman a "Sales Executive" or a clerk an "Executive Assistant." As youngsters like you with a high academic profile show a passion for HRD as a chosen profession, it is unnecessary to dwell much on the differences and distinctions between the concepts of personnel management and human resource development management. The minimum non-compliance with legal provisions by the human resources, whether it be the workmen or the HR people in the organization, will certainly indicate the absence of realization of their knowledge about their rights and responsibilities as well as a lack of workers' education.
Counter-Questions
Now, coming to your questions, before receiving possible answers from others, including myself, would you mind answering the following counter-questions?
1. Is yours a public utility service?
2. If so, what do the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the rules framed thereunder say about the responsibility of an employer in the event of receiving a strike notice?
3. Why is there a strike notice from the workmen? Is it a mere empty legal formality or something else?
4. Why does the management adopt a tough stand to ignore the move? Is it because the time chosen by the workmen to strike work is favorable to the management?
5. Suppose the workmen also adopt a tough stand to continue the strike until their demands are met, and it actually happens, who will be at a greater loss, the management or the workmen?
6. Will other stakeholders like your bankers, creditors, or customers appreciate your stand and postpone or waive the fulfillment of your liabilities to them?
7. Like in Tamilnadu, in the interest of public safety, maintenance of public order or convenience, maintaining employment and industrial peace, if the government bans the strike and orders the management to resume operations with certain temporary conditions imposed by it until the publication of the Award in the dispute and refers the entire demands of the workmen for adjudication, what will the management do? (Of course, even after going to the High Court under Art226 and being unsuccessful)
Regards.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
Counter-Questions
Now, coming to your questions, before receiving possible answers from others, including myself, would you mind answering the following counter-questions?
1. Is yours a public utility service?
2. If so, what do the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the rules framed thereunder say about the responsibility of an employer in the event of receiving a strike notice?
3. Why is there a strike notice from the workmen? Is it a mere empty legal formality or something else?
4. Why does the management adopt a tough stand to ignore the move? Is it because the time chosen by the workmen to strike work is favorable to the management?
5. Suppose the workmen also adopt a tough stand to continue the strike until their demands are met, and it actually happens, who will be at a greater loss, the management or the workmen?
6. Will other stakeholders like your bankers, creditors, or customers appreciate your stand and postpone or waive the fulfillment of your liabilities to them?
7. Like in Tamilnadu, in the interest of public safety, maintenance of public order or convenience, maintaining employment and industrial peace, if the government bans the strike and orders the management to resume operations with certain temporary conditions imposed by it until the publication of the Award in the dispute and refers the entire demands of the workmen for adjudication, what will the management do? (Of course, even after going to the High Court under Art226 and being unsuccessful)
Regards.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Industrial Dispute Act.ppt
Online proforma for raising industrial dispute under ID Act 18.7.2017.pdf
Industrial Employment Standing Oder Act.doc