Dear Experts, Let me clarify how many people can attend labour hearing at labour office from the side of employees as their representatives. Geena
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The number of employer representatives is not mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The number of employee representatives should be decided by the employer only.
Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Works Committee Formation: A Works Committee shall be constituted when the workforce employed exceeds 100 on any day in the preceding 12 months, as provided under Section 3. The Works Committee shall be constituted with an equal number of workers and employer representatives.
This information is based on my knowledge.
Regards,
Narayan
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
74Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Works Committee Formation: A Works Committee shall be constituted when the workforce employed exceeds 100 on any day in the preceding 12 months, as provided under Section 3. The Works Committee shall be constituted with an equal number of workers and employer representatives.
This information is based on my knowledge.
Regards,
Narayan
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Representation at Labor Office Hearings
The works committee cannot represent employees in the labor office. Neither the ID Act nor the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules prescribe this issue. The rules specify who shall sign the settlement on behalf of the employer or workmen. The employer can limit the number, for example, to two persons from the concerned union or the employee alone.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
TVPM-[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The works committee cannot represent employees in the labor office. Neither the ID Act nor the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules prescribe this issue. The rules specify who shall sign the settlement on behalf of the employer or workmen. The employer can limit the number, for example, to two persons from the concerned union or the employee alone.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
TVPM-[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This entire section, which consists of four sub-sections, describes the representatives of the workmen and employers before the various Authorities of Conciliation, Arbitration, and Adjudication. It also addresses the relaxation for the engagement of legal practitioners by either party, subject to certain conditions. The specific number of representatives has not been mentioned. Remember, too many cooks will spoil the broth. Therefore, it is advisable to limit the number of representatives to the necessary extent to facilitate a smooth and productive discussion leading to a prompt and amicable resolution of any disputes.
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Umakanthan has rightly referred to Sec. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which deals with the representation of parties before any proceeding under the Act. It does not fix any number as being authorized to represent a workman. It only states that any member or executive office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member can represent him.
You seem to be referring to hearings in conciliation proceedings at the labor office. An industrial dispute under conciliation may end either in settlement or failure. Therefore, some help and guidance can be sought from Rule 58 of the Central Rules on the issue of representation, which states that a settlement can be signed by any officer of a trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of the workmen, duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for this purpose.
It appears from the above that if the dispute is raised by a trade union on behalf of the workmen, it is enough if an office bearer (or two) attends the hearing, namely President or Vice-President or the Secretary, etc. If there is no such union of workmen, probably five workmen can be allowed to attend the hearing. I have not come across any case law on this issue. This is only an interpretation of Sec. 36 read with Rule 58 of Central Rules. You may look for your relevant State rule.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
In-house
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
You seem to be referring to hearings in conciliation proceedings at the labor office. An industrial dispute under conciliation may end either in settlement or failure. Therefore, some help and guidance can be sought from Rule 58 of the Central Rules on the issue of representation, which states that a settlement can be signed by any officer of a trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of the workmen, duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for this purpose.
It appears from the above that if the dispute is raised by a trade union on behalf of the workmen, it is enough if an office bearer (or two) attends the hearing, namely President or Vice-President or the Secretary, etc. If there is no such union of workmen, probably five workmen can be allowed to attend the hearing. I have not come across any case law on this issue. This is only an interpretation of Sec. 36 read with Rule 58 of Central Rules. You may look for your relevant State rule.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
In-house
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Apart from the rules and sections which are silent on the number of representatives, there are some contexts I would like to share that have happened to me earlier.
Union Practices During Conciliation
It is usually a practice for unions to flood the labor office with hundreds of members, all supposedly wanting to participate in the conciliation. There is also a threat perception whenever a management representative attends such conciliation, where you have a mob of so-called 'employee representatives' who would adopt pressure tactics to extract certain commitments during the conciliation.
Recommended Approach
Under such circumstances, it is better to avoid conciliation and provide a written reply through your legal adviser, letting the matters be referred to adjudication.
Kind regards,
Dayanand L Guddin
From Singapore, Singapore
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Union Practices During Conciliation
It is usually a practice for unions to flood the labor office with hundreds of members, all supposedly wanting to participate in the conciliation. There is also a threat perception whenever a management representative attends such conciliation, where you have a mob of so-called 'employee representatives' who would adopt pressure tactics to extract certain commitments during the conciliation.
Recommended Approach
Under such circumstances, it is better to avoid conciliation and provide a written reply through your legal adviser, letting the matters be referred to adjudication.
Kind regards,
Dayanand L Guddin
From Singapore, Singapore
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
While appreciating the graphic picture of ground reality depicted by Dayanand, as a retired Conciliation Officer, I would like to state something more in this regard. Generally, conciliation proceedings by the conciliation officers are conducted in an air of informal atmosphere. Thus, it would be a catharsis of untold emotions and, therefore, at times it could be a scene of commotion. Particularly in a strike or lock-out situation, it is quite natural for anxious workmen to assemble in the Labour Office in large numbers to watch the negotiations.
Conciliation as an Administrative Function
Interestingly, conciliation is only an administrative function primarily aiming at:
1. Making the disputants sit together across the table to understand the justifications of their respective stands on the issues at stake.
2. Identifying the issues that are quickly resolvable and inducing the disputants accordingly.
3. Understanding the hidden agenda behind the respective stands of the parties and, therefore, bringing out only the contentious issues for open discussion.
4. Finally, inducing the disputants to take amicable decisions mutually beneficial in the long run.
So, purposely, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not confer any special powers on the conciliation officer and leaves everything to his own ingenuity.
In such a critical function, crowding of the venue of the proceedings will be a great disadvantage, and therefore the view of Saikumar based on Rule 58 of the Central Rules, 1957 seems acceptable to me.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Conciliation as an Administrative Function
Interestingly, conciliation is only an administrative function primarily aiming at:
1. Making the disputants sit together across the table to understand the justifications of their respective stands on the issues at stake.
2. Identifying the issues that are quickly resolvable and inducing the disputants accordingly.
3. Understanding the hidden agenda behind the respective stands of the parties and, therefore, bringing out only the contentious issues for open discussion.
4. Finally, inducing the disputants to take amicable decisions mutually beneficial in the long run.
So, purposely, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not confer any special powers on the conciliation officer and leaves everything to his own ingenuity.
In such a critical function, crowding of the venue of the proceedings will be a great disadvantage, and therefore the view of Saikumar based on Rule 58 of the Central Rules, 1957 seems acceptable to me.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)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.
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.doc
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.pdf
6519499-The-Ind ustrial-Dispute s-Act-1947-late r-part.ppt