The three methods for settlement of industrial disputes are as follows: 1. Conciliation 2.

Arbitration 3. Adjudication.

Failure of the employees and the employers to sort out their differences bilaterally leads to
the emergence of industrial disputes. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides legalistic
machinery for settlement of such disputes by involving the interference of a third party.

The settlement machinery as provided by the Act consists of the three methods:
1. Conciliation

2. Arbitration

3. Adjudication

These are discussed one by one.

1. Conciliation:
In simple sense, conciliation means reconciliation of differences between persons.
Conciliation refers to the process by which representatives of workers and employers are
brought together before a third party with a view to persuading them to arrive at an agreement
by mutual discussion between them. The alternative name which is used for conciliation is
mediation. The third party may be one individual or a group of people.

In view of its objective to settle disputes as quickly as possible, conciliation is

characterised by the following features:
(i) The conciliator or mediator tries to remove the difference between the parties.

(ii) He/she persuades the parties to think over the matter with a problem-solving approach,
i.e., with a give and take approach.

(iii) He/she only persuades the disputants to reach a solution and never imposes his/her own
viewpoint.

(iv) The conciliator may change his approach from case to case as he/she finds fit depending
on other factors.
According to the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the conciliation machinery in India
consists of the following:
1. Conciliation Officer

2. Board of Conciliation

3. Court of Enquiry

A brief description of each of these follows:

Conciliation Officer: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under its Section 4, provides for the
appropriate government to appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit to be conciliation
officers. Here, the appropriate government means one in whose jurisdiction the disputes fall.
While the Commissioner /additional commissioner/deputy commissioner is appointed as
conciliation officer for undertakings employing 20 or more persons, at the State level,
officers from central Labour Commission office are appointed as conciliation officers, in the
case of Central government. The conciliation officer enjoys the powers of a civil court. He is
expected to give judgment within 14 days of the commencement of the conciliation
proceedings. The judgement given by him is binding on the parties to the dispute.

Board of Conciliation:
In case the conciliation officer fails to resolve the dispute between the disputants, under
Section 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate government can appoint a
Board of Conciliation. Thus, the Board of Conciliation is not a permanent institution like
conciliation officer. It is an adhoc body consisting of a chairman and two or four other
members nominated in equal numbers by the parties to the dispute.

The Board enjoys the powers of civil court. The Board admits disputes only referred to it by
the government. It follows the same conciliation proceedings as is followed by the
conciliation officer. The Board is expected to give its judgment within two months of the date
on which the dispute was referred to it.

In India, appointment of the Board of Conciliation is rare for the settlement of disputes. In
practice, settling disputes through a conciliation officer is more common and flexible.

2. Arbitration:
Arbitration is a process in which the conflicting parties agree to refer their dispute to a neutral
third party known as ‘Arbitrator’. Arbitration differs from conciliation in the sense that in
arbitration the arbitrator gives his judgment on a dispute while in conciliation, the conciliator
disputing parties to reach at a decision.

The arbitrator does not enjoy any judicial powers. The arbitrator listens to the view points of
the conflicting parties and then gives his decision which is binding on all the parties. The
judgment on the dispute is sent to the government. The government publishes the judgment
within 30 days of its submission and the same becomes enforceable after 30 days of its
publication. In India, there are two types of arbitration: Voluntary and Compulsory.

Voluntary Arbitration:
In voluntary arbitration both the conflicting parties appoint a neutral third party as arbitrator.
The arbitrator acts only when the dispute is referred to him/her. With a view to promote
voluntary arbitration, the Government of India has constituted a tripartite National Arbitration
Promotion Board in July 1987, consisting of representatives of employees (trade employers
and the Government. However, the voluntary arbitration could not be successful because the
judgments given by it are not binding on the disputants. Yes, moral binding is exception to it.

Compulsory Arbitration:
In compulsory arbitration, the government can force the disputing parties to go for
compulsory arbitration. In other form, both the disputing parties can request the government
to refer their dispute for arbitration. The judgment given by the arbitrator is binding on the
parties of dispute.

REFERENCE OF DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

ACT,
1947

In Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate1, the SC stated the principal
objects of the I.D. Act as follows:
1. For preserving amity and securing good relations between employer and workmen,
promotion of measures;

1
(1958) 1 LLJ 500 SC.
 2. The investigation into and the settlement of industrial disputes between employers
and employees, employers and workmen or workmen and workmen, with a right of
representation by a registered TU or a federation of TU or an association of employers
or federation of associations of employers2;
3. Prevention of illegal strikes and lockouts
4. In matters of lay off of retrenchment, providing relief to workmen
5. Ensure collective bargaining3
In Sindhu Hochtief(India) Pvt Ltd Vs Pratap Dialers4, the court held that the dispute as to
what should happen to the undistributed bonus will not fall within the definition of an
industrial dispute as defined in section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
An agreement, to refer an industrial dispute to an arbitrator under section 10-A is not a
settlement of the disputes as laid down in section 2(p) of the I.D Act because the dispute
subsists after the agreement. The solution to the dispute will be the award given by the
arbitrator. Industrial dispute may be said to be in controversy with respect to working
conditions, employment matters, wages or union recognition.5 There are different forms and
causes of industrial dispute. The term industrial dispute in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
has the following features:
1. There should be dispute
2. It could be between employer-employer, employer-employee or employee-employee.
3. The dispute must be related to work related issue.

4. The dispute must be raised by a group or class of workers.6

There are various methods of settling industrial dispute. It may be without state intervention
by Collective bargaining i.e. without conciliation or with conciliation or by voluntary
arbitration. The Industrial Disputes Act along with providing machinery for investigation and
settlement of disputes, provides measures for prevention of conflicts. If the industrial disputes
are not settled by collective bargaining or works committees or by bipartite negotiations, the
Industrial Disputes Act provides the following authorities;

2
K Alexander , Collective Bargaining in Industrial Labour in India 384-85(1963).
3
O.P.Malhotra , The Law of INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES(6th ed, 2004)
4
(1968) 2 LLJ 515(Bom)
5
H L Kumar , Labour Problems and Remedies, (10th Ed, 2012)
6
H K. Sahney ,Textbook on labour and industrial law,( 5th ed., 2011)
Conciliation Officer and Board of Conciliation, Voluntary Arbitration, Adjudication by labor
court, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal[16].
Arbitration refers to negotiations in which parties are encouraged to negotiate directly with
each other prior to some other legal process. Arbitration systems authorize a third party to
decide how a dispute should be resolved[17].
Arbitration process may be either binding or non-binding. Binding arbitration produces a
third party decision that the disputants must follow although they disagree with the result.
Non-binding arbitration produces a third party decision that the parties may reject.
ADR process may be mandatory and they may be required as part of a prior contractual
agreement between parties. In voluntary process, submission of a dispute to an ADR process
depends entirely on the will of the parties[18].
In voluntary arbitration, the parties willingly refer their dispute to a third party. The essentials
include, there should be voluntary submission of dispute, investigation and attendance of
witness. It may be specially arising under disagreement of contracts or agreements. There is
no compulsion in this case[19].
In compulsory arbitration, it has to be accepted mandatorily. It is entirely based on voluntary
discretion of the appropriate government based on the dispute.[20]The essentials of
compulsory arbitration consists that the parties should fail to arrive at a settlement by
voluntary method, if there is grave economic crisis, there is grave public dissatisfaction, any
national emergency or if parties are ill balanced and public interest is of prime importance. It
leaves no scope for strikes or lockouts. Moreover it deprives both the parties of their
fundamental rights[21].
The ADR process is extra judicial in nature. ADR is informal, there is application of equity,
and there is direct participation and communication between disputants[22].

3. Adjudication:
The ultimate legal remedy for the settlement of an unresolved dispute is its reference to
adjudication by the government. The government can refer the dispute to adjudication with or
without the consent of the disputing parties. When the dispute is referred to adjudication with
the consent of the disputing parties, it is called ‘voluntary adjudication.’ When the
government herself refers the dispute to adjudication without consulting the concerned
parties, it is known as ‘compulsory adjudication.