How the 2010 Amendments to India's Industrial Disputes Act Affect Workers and Employers Today

Dear Friends,

The Government of India, after nearly 26 years, amended the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 through its Amendment Act of 2010, which has now come into force with effect from 15th September 2010, as per Notification No. S.O. 2278(E) dated 15th September 2010.

The impact of the amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act is as follows:

1. In the case of an individual dispute of a workman related to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination by any means, the workman now has the right to approach the labor court directly without waiting for conciliation proceedings and Government reference. However, the workman must wait for three months for this direct action from the date of filing his application before the conciliation officer if the Government is unable to complete the reference process within three months. Previously, there was no such direct option available for the workman to approach the labor court.

2. The workman in the case of an individual dispute must file a claim within the time limit period of three years. Previously, there was no such limitation period prescribed under the ID Act.

3. The wage ceiling of the workman has been increased from Rs. 1600/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month. This means that any person working in any industry, performing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work drawing wages up to Rs. 10,000/- will be considered a workman. Previously, this limit was up to Rs. 1600/-. This amendment has increased the coverage of workmen, and more people are now covered under the Act.

4. The definition of the appropriate Government has been expanded. Now, for industries, corporations, and PSEs owned or controlled by the Central Government, the appropriate Government would be the Central Government.

5. For industries under the control of the State Government, the appropriate Government would be the State Government.

6. The qualifications of labor court/tribunal Judges have been expanded. Now, Deputy Labour Commissioners/Joint Labour Commissioners with a degree in Law and seven years of experience can also become labor court judges.

7. Every industry employing 20 or more workmen is now legally obligated to constitute and have a grievance redressal mechanism in place in the organization to resolve workers' disputes at the first level. Previously, this was not a legal requirement. The related provisions introduced in the ID Act in 1984 were never enforced.

8. A provision has been made to enforce the decisions of the labor court/tribunal. Previously, such a provision did not exist in the Act, and there was no mechanism to enforce the execution of the employer even after the decision of the labor court/tribunal. Now, the labor court/tribunal shall transmit their award to the concerned civil court, which shall execute the award as if a decree was passed by the court.

Regards,

Anil Kaushik

Chief Editor, BUSINESS MANAGER

B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar-301001 (Rajasthan), India

Landline: 0144-2372022

Mobile: 09829133699

"YOUR TODAY'S PROBLEMS ARE YESTERDAY'S WRONG DECISIONS"

Dear Anil,

Thanks for providing the information to the members. After going through the attachment, it is noticed that at Sr. 6, in place of DLC, we should read it as Dy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), and in place of JLC, this is to be read as Joint Labour Commissioner of the State. Submitted only for information.

With Regards,

R.N.Khola

Dear All,

Point no. 2...

In Haryana state Co-Operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam, the aggrieved party filed a suit after seven years. (2005 LLJ 1153 SC) The Supreme Court awarded in the above case.

As per the amended Industrial Disputes Act, the ceiling limit has been increased from 1600 to 10000. What is the significance of this ceiling limit in this context? If a worker is earning more than 10000, will he be considered a workman?

Please clarify.

Dear Anshu,

Your questions about the impact of the recent amendments are very relevant. I owe the responsibility to clarify the points raised by you.

1. Till this recent amendment, there was no provision in the ID Act regarding the time period during which a workman was to file the claim or raise the individual Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer of the Labour department.

2. For the first time now, the Act has been amended to put a bar on raising an individual Industrial Dispute within a time period of three years. This means that if the workman raises his individual dispute of termination, retrenchment, dismissal, or discharge from service after the three-year period, it will be treated as time-barred and will not be entertained. In such a case, the workman will not get any relief.

3. The case of Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam, which you have referred to, is a case where the workman raised an industrial dispute of her illegal termination after 7 years. The Labour Court denied any relief to her on the ground that her claim was belated. The Court used its discretion at this point, though there was no such provision in the ID Act about a time limit for raising a dispute. The High Court set aside the order of the Labour Court with the observation that since there was no provision of a time limit in the Act, the workman can't be denied of any relief, and her raising the dispute after 7 years, she can't be debarred from seeking any relief against her illegal termination. However, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and upheld the judgment of the Labour Court because the Labour Court considered the conduct of the workman in approaching the court after 7 years as a relevant factor for refusing to grant any relief. Though other issues like estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, res judicata were also involved and discussed, they are not relevant here, hence not elaborated.

4. In many cases, the appropriate Government considered this factor of time and decided not to refer the dispute if raised after 7 to 13 years of illegal termination, and courts have upheld the decision of the Government. Courts also have refused to grant any relief in such belated claims purely based on their discretion. It is also held that even if the act did not have any limitation period, it will not allow the workman to raise a dispute at any point in time as per his wish.

5. The definition of a workman has been amended to the extent that now if a workman is performing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work and drawing wages not exceeding Rs. 10,000 will be deemed as a workman and can enforce his/her rights provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. This does not mean that if a workman is performing the above activities and drawing more than Rs. 10,000 will not be considered a workman. A person employed in a supervisory capacity and by the nature of his duties, if he functions mainly as a manager and draws wages more than Rs. 10,000, will not be considered a workman. Earlier, this limit was up to Rs. 1600. If a person mainly functions as a manager but draws less than Rs. 10,000, he will not be excluded from the definition.

6. I would like to make it clear here that neither the designation of a person nor his wages are determinant factors to conclude whether a person is a workman or not. Courts have repeatedly decided that it is the nature of duties that will determine whether a person is a workman or not.

7. Now, let us take an example - if a person is functioning in a supervisory capacity but drawing less than Rs. 10,000, he will not be deemed as a supervisor and excluded from the definition of the workman of the ID Act. Three conditions are to be fulfilled before a person is considered not a workman:

(i) He should be appointed in a supervisory capacity.
(ii) His wages should be more than Rs. 10,000.
(iii) He should be vested with the powers of a manager and functions mainly of a managerial nature.

I hope your doubts are clear now.

Regards,

Anil Kaushik
Chief Editor - Business Manager - HR Magazine
B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. - 09829133699
Email: bmalwar@yahoo.com

Thank you for the timely information on the latest amendment of the ID Act and the subsequent clarification to the query of some CiteHR community member.

Regards,
SK Hota

The Act shall come into effect from such date as the Government of India, by notification, may appoint. Hence, a separate notification is necessary for it to be effective. Please let me know if you need further assistance.

Regards,

According to Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act of 2010, it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may appoint by notification in the Official Gazette. Hence, a separate Gazette notification is necessary to make the amendments effective from the appointed date.

It has already come into force via notification No. S.O. 2278(E) dated 15.09.2010.

Regards,
Anil Kaushik

Dear Member,

It seems that you have not gone through the attachment made by Mr. Anil Kaushik. It is clearly mentioned in this attachment that in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection 2 of section 1 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, the Central Govt. hereby appoints the 15th Day of September 2010 as the date on which the same Act shall come into force - Ravi Mathur Adll. Secy.

Now, if this is not correct, then let us know what is the position as of today.

Regards,
R.N. Khola

According to Sec. 1(2) of the Amendment Act, 2010: It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Hence, a separate Gazette notification is necessary to make the amendments effective from the date appointed.

Mr. Anil Kushik,

Thank you for sharing valuable amendments.

1. Has the notification been published?
2. In this definition, clerical or supervisory work drawing wages up to Rs. 10,000 will be considered as workman. However, clerical employees receive salaries. Is it the same?
3. Now, supervisory work is also included. What are the indicators?

I request every member to share their views on this.

Mukund Shouche

After going through the amendment, the status of workmen is as per the definition given in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, setting up a grievance committee will include the temps from the staffing company. Though they are not direct employees of the company, since the Act is applicable, they will be covered. The staffing industry will be considered an industry because it is covered under the definition of industry.

Thank you for sharing the information. I look forward to more valid amendments like this. It would be great if you could also share articles on the subject.

Regards,
SVS Rao

Grievance Redressal Machinery: A Statutory Requirement

As per the ID Act Amendment, Section 9C was introduced, making the establishment of Grievance Redressal Machinery a statutory requirement.

Section 9C is extracted:

9C. (1) Every industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance Redressal Committees for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances.

(2) The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist of an equal number of members from the employer and the workmen.

(3) The chairperson of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be selected from the employer and among the workmen alternately on a rotation basis every year.

(4) The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed six:

Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable, one woman member if the Grievance Redressal Committee has two members, and in case the number of members is more than two, the number of women members may be increased proportionately.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the setting up of a Grievance Redressal Committee shall not affect the right of the workman to raise an industrial dispute on the same matter under the provisions of this Act.

(6) The Grievance Redressal Committee may complete its proceedings within thirty days on receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the aggrieved party.

(7) The workman who is aggrieved by the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee may prefer an appeal to the employer against the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee, and the employer shall, within one month from the date of receipt of such appeal, dispose of the same and send a copy of his decision to the workman concerned.

HR professionals may provide their feedback in this thread on their experience in setting up this Grievance Redressal Machinery in their respective organizations.

With Regards,

Advocates & Notaries - Legal Consultants - HR

Email: [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Mobile: [Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]

More at https://www.citehr.com/285737-legal-...#ixzz1Xbr1Z7fo

Mr. Kaushik,

You have provided very useful information. Thank you for that. But please clarify one thing: "Does a workman who is drawing a gross salary of less than ₹10,000 or equal only have the right to go to the Labour court, or can a workman drawing a salary of more than ₹10,000 also go to the Labour court?" Please clarify.

Thanks once again.

Regards,
S.N. Choudhury
Personnel Officer
IDTR, JSR

A workman drawing ₹10,000 or more can also approach the labour court or labor department authorities for redressal of his complaint, provided his duties are not of a supervisory or managerial nature.

Regards,
Anil Kaushik

Disciplinary action against an employee can be taken in accordance with the provisions of certified standing orders. You can also suspend the employee pending disciplinary proceedings.

Regards,
Anil Kaushik