Case AnalysisTermination At Indian Steel Plant

By

Apoorv Parmar

Kushaang Deswal

Pulkit Kapoor

Team FOREians

FORE School Of

Management

• Indian Steel Plant(ISP) started in 1956-57 and employs more than 57,000 people.• Steel Workers’ Union (SWU) is the representative Union

at ISP under the affiliation of INTUC, trade union wing of the ruling Congress Party.• SWU commands a following of over 40,000 employees.• Plant is divided into 4 zones, each headed by Deputy

General Secretaries (DGS ) of the zone’s union.

Situational Analysis

• Grievance Handling Procedure at ISP:• Stage 1:Grievance to be replied by shop level personal

officer (P.O.).• Stage 2:To be handled by a committee of HOD, P.O. and

union shop representative.• Stage 3:To be handled by a committee consisting of :

DGM, P.O., Manager, DGS, Grievances Secretary (in charge of Grievance Cell).

• For any grievances reported to the committee, an enquiry committee is responsible for examining the complaint and submitting a report about their findings.

Situational Analysis Continued…

• Only one State Industrial Relations Act was passed in 1960 which was Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act.• Thus the Indian Steel Plant is located in Madhya Pradesh.• The State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh got dissolved in 1992

and President’s rule came into action on 16th December 1992 till 6th December 1993.

Unidentified Facts

• MQA and BSR – Electrical technicians working under their manager RVSN.

Actions : Both were involved in misbehavior with their Manager RVSN

• Grievance Secretary – In charge of the grievance cell.

Actions : Mr. Secretary plays his role fairly providing an unbiased point of view.Mr. Secretary due to pressure from the top management and involvement of influential people had to consider this case as a priority.

• Deputy General Secretary – Head of the Union in a Zone.

Actions: Represented union in the grievance meeting. Questions the committee on various questions pertaining to the enquiry.

• Deputy General Manager – Chairperson of the committee.

Actions : Took further appropriate actions when the committee ordered to change the judgment.

Actors

• MQA and BSR due to their political backup had no fear of action and performed the act.

• 1st June, 1992 - Charge sheet filed against MQA BSR for 4 charges.

• 9th June, 1992 - Explanations of MQA and BSR received.

• 13th June, 1992 - Enquiry begins after appointing an enquiry office and a prosecution nominee.

• 12th December, 1992 – Orders issued to terminate MQA and BSR.

• 16th December, 1992 - Government dissolves in Madhya Pradesh, President rule implemented.

• 26th December, 1992 MQA and BSR submitted grievance in cell against their termination.

Chronology

• Now due to the influence of the Congress and President’s rule in action, the committee was asked to take up the matter urgently and on priority.

• The Committee met for 5 times in 26 days which was not the usual case with other Grievance complains.

• 2nd , 4th, 14th, 23rd January - Committee sittings took place.

• Calling the committee meeting on national holiday is an indication of fact that there was political pressure on Management.

• First the SWU filed for incorrect enquiry and then settled for reduction in quantum of punishment.

• 12th February, 1993 – Grievant MQA and BSR were informed about their grade reduction

Are significant indicators towards strong political influence and how union affiliation saved MQA and BSR from their justified penalties.

Was it really Fair? FAIR A enquiry was conducted and then decision was taken.

Second chance were given to grievant.

UNFAIR Sudden disappearance of witnesses.

Top management informing the Grievance Secretary in advance about the case indicates unfair and fishy means.Senior management members working on holidays.

Appointing an Enquiry Committee with managers from the same departmentGrievance committee forced to perform the role which they are not meant to do.

Presence of Union backing provoked MQA and BSR to perform a misconduct.

It was the presence of a union that they challenged the decision of the enquiry committee despite the fact that they were proven guilty.

The influence of a union led to conclusion of the grievance of MQA and BSR very quickly which involved working on public holidays as well.

There were no witnesses due to the fear of Congress backed Union.

The accused were still in job.

Presence of Union

The Grievance committee could have returned the Grievances since challenging enquiry committee’s report isn't the job of the grievance committee.MQA and BSR would have straight away terminated rather than reinstating them and just dropping their work grades.

In absence of Union, MQA and BSR would have move to Labour Court as per Chapter 9, Section 49-Point 1 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960

There would have been some witnesses due to no fear of Congress backed Union.

Drastic difference in processing due to no pressure from management and Union.

Absence of Union

THANK YOU

AND HERE WE SHALL REST OUR CASE.