Dear All,
At the end of it all I am in position where I can say that I stand more confused then before. I had a question where I wanted to know under which section of ID Act 1947 (definitely not 2k and 33 (2C)) can an employee raise a dispute in case the dispute doesn't fall under sec 2A.
Let's take an example;
An employee is aggrieved of the fact that the management has not made him permanent in spite of working for 10 years in that company as a casual worker. Now whether an employee should be made permanent or not is surely the management prerogative(in absence of any settlement between the management and union) but the employee in this case can surely feel aggrieved and want to raise a dispute against the management of unfair labour practice. Now here comes the confusion..... , he cannot find respite through sec 2A, so what would be his option in that case. He has to file a case against the management but under which sec? Remember, if he doesn't have a case his case won't reach the level of conciliation, arbitration or adjudication or whatever.
I think this time I have made myself clear.
Regards
At the end of it all I am in position where I can say that I stand more confused then before. I had a question where I wanted to know under which section of ID Act 1947 (definitely not 2k and 33 (2C)) can an employee raise a dispute in case the dispute doesn't fall under sec 2A.
Let's take an example;
An employee is aggrieved of the fact that the management has not made him permanent in spite of working for 10 years in that company as a casual worker. Now whether an employee should be made permanent or not is surely the management prerogative(in absence of any settlement between the management and union) but the employee in this case can surely feel aggrieved and want to raise a dispute against the management of unfair labour practice. Now here comes the confusion..... , he cannot find respite through sec 2A, so what would be his option in that case. He has to file a case against the management but under which sec? Remember, if he doesn't have a case his case won't reach the level of conciliation, arbitration or adjudication or whatever.
I think this time I have made myself clear.
Regards