ILO(International Labour Organisation) and India
The ILO was set up on April 19, 1919.
Representatives of management, labour and government participate in its proceedings.
In 1946, when the United Nations Organisation came into being, the ILO became the first
specialist agency of the organisation.
The ILO was born as a result of the peace conference convened at the end of World War I at
Versailles. As an original signatory to the treaty of peace, India became a member in 1919.
It is like other inter-governmental agencies such as the FAO or WHO working for the
universal cause but differing from them in one aspect, namely, in its tripartite structure.
There are three groups, namely, “the governments which finance it, the workers, for whose
benefit it is created and the employers who share the responsibility for the welfare of the
workers.
The objectives of the ILO are enunciated in the preamble to its constitution supplemented by
Article 427 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, 1919 as well as by the Philadelphia
Declaration of 1944.
The Declaration of Philadelphia set forth 10 objectives which the ILO was to further and
promote among the nations of the world. For e.g. Labour is not a commodity.
Membership
The constitution of the ILO provides simple rules of procedures regarding admission or a
State to the membership of the ILO. It provides that all those States which were members of
the ILO on November 1, 1945 and any original member of the UN can become member of
the ILO by accepting the obligations of its constitution. Other States can also become
members of the ILO by a vote concurred by 2/3 of the delegates attending the session
including 2/3 of the government delegates present and voting.
In 1945, the constitution of the ILO was amended and the ILO entered into a relationship
with the United Nations. The new rules say that: (i) while membership of the UN does not
mean membership of the ILO, any original member of the UN and any State subsequently
admitted to membership of the UN may become a member of the ILO by communicating to
the Director General, its formal acceptance of the obligations of the ILO; (ii) if a State is not a
member of the UN, the ILO confers on the ILC (Parliamentary wing of the ILO) the right to
admit that state to membership, which it had assumed de facto during the period of the
relationship of the ILO with the League. There were 45 States who were members of the ILO
in 1919.
Withdrawal of Membership
The Constitution of the ILO contains the specific right of the member state to withdraw by
giving notice to the Director General of the ILO. Such notice will take 2 years after the date
of its receipt by the Director General and is subject to the member having at that time fulfilled
all its financial obligations.
Since the Second World War, five members have given notice of withdrawal but in three
cases the members have returned to the ILO.
Structure of the ILO
The ILO is organised around 3 subsystems:
1. An International Labour Conference
2. A Governing Body
3. An International Labour Office
The Conference is the supreme policy making and legislative body. The Governing Body
is the executive council and the International Labour Office is the secretariat, operational
headquarters and information centre.
The sessions of the ILO are held at least once a year and all delegates may be
accompanied by advisors, not exceeding two for each item on the agenda.
One of the primary powers of the Conference is to appoint committees to deal with different
matters during each session. All the committees are tripartite in nature except the Finance
Committee. The various committees are the Selection Committee, the Credential
Committee, the Resolution Committee, a Committee for the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, the Drafting Committee and the Committee on Standing Orders.
The Governing Body
This is another of the principal bodies of the ILO. It is a non-political, non-legislative,
tripartite body. It carries out the decisions of the Conference with the help of the
International Labour Office. It consists of 56 members from whom 28 represent
governments, 14 employers and 14 workers. Of the 28 member government contingent, 10
are appointed by the members of the States of Chief Industrial Importance and the balance
is delegates of other governments. The criterion for the selection of members of Chief
Industrial Importance is the strength of its total industrial population.
India is one of the ten States of Chief Industrial Importance. The period of office of this body
is 3 years. It meets several times a year to take decisions on the programmes of the ILO.
The International Labour Office
This is the third major body in the ILO system. It functions as the Secretariat of the ILO in
Geneva. The Director General of the ILO is the Chief Executive of this office. The
Director General is appointed by the Governing Body and he also acts as the Secretary
General of the Conference. He is appointed for 10 years and his term may be extended by
the Governing Body. The staff for this office is appointed by the Director General. He is
assisted by two deputy director generals, six assistant director generals, one director of the
International Institute for Labour Studies, one director of the International Centre of
Advanced Technical and Vocational Training, advisors chiefs of divisions and other staff
drawn from 100 nations.
Finance and Budget of the ILO
The ILC fixes the budget on the recommendations of the Governing Body and member
states make contributions accordingly. Contributions are fixed on an ad hoc basis from year
to year. India’s contribution is 2.77% of the ILO annual budget and her contribution is 7th in
order.
RATIFICATION PROCEDURES OF ILO STANDARDS
The ILO standards are analogous to treaties requiring ratification by a competent national
authority within a period of 1 year or 18 months at the latest from the closing session of
the ILC.
The Directive Principles of State Policy in Articles 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution lay
down policy objectives in the field of labour having close resemblance and influence to the
ILO Constitution and the Philadelphia Charter of 1944.”
History of Industrial relations in India
There were numerous strikes and disturbances during 1928-29. As a result, the
government enacted the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, to enhance the early settlement of
industrial disputes. This was based on the British Industrial Courts (BIC) Act, 1919.
The Trade Disputes Act, 1929, differed from the BIC Act in that it did not provide for any
standing machinery for the settlement of disputes. However, it was found that neither the
Central government nor the State governments made adequate use of this law.
In 1938, in order to meet the acute industrial unrest prevailing then, the Bombay government
enacted the Bombay Industrial Relations (BIR) Act. For the first time permanent
machinery, called the Industrial Court, was established for settling disputes. This was
replaced by the BIR Act, 1946, which was amended in 1948, 1949, 1953 and 1956.
After India attained independence, one of the significant steps taken in the field of industrial
relations was the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which not only provides for
the establishment of permanent machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes but also
makes these awards binding and legally enforceable.
Besides the Industrial Disputes Act, in December 1947, an industrial conference was held in
India, where an appeal was made to labour and management in the form of an Industrial
Truce Resolution to maintain industrial harmony.
Another development in the immediate post-Independence period was the setting up of the
Indian Labour Conference (ILC), a tripartite body to look into IR problems in India. It was
constituted with the objective of establishing co-operation between the government, the
employers and the trade unions. It held its first meeting in August 1942. It met once a year to
discuss problems relating to labour-management relations.
However, since the early 1970s the Indian Labour Conference met only sporadically,
depending on the issues and concerns of the Labour Ministry.
fact, the period between 1957 and 1965 can be regarded as an attempt to move away from
legalism to voluntarism which had dominated IR in India.
In 1966, the National Commission of Labour (NCL) was appointed by the government to
look into labour matters and make recommendations. It submitted its report in 1969.
In 1966, the National Commission of Labour (NCL) was appointed by the government to look
into labour matters and make recommendations. It submitted its report in 1969.
The NationalApex Body and some State Apex Bodies (SABs) were bipartite in
composition. The National Apex Body consisted of 23 members (12 representing workers
and 11 representing employers). It met six times during 1976 for reviewing industrial
relations and labour matters, with the government acting as an arbitrator. (These bodies did
not have a long tenure. During the Janata government, they were abolished and the ILC was
revived once again in May 1977.)
To meet the situation of industrial strife, on 26th July 1981, the Government issued an
ordinance to ban strikes. A new law, called the Essential Services Maintenance Act
(ESMA), was also promulgated.The Essential Services Maintenance Act empowers the
government to ban strikes, lay-offs and lockouts in what it deems to be “essential services”.
It also empowers the government to punish any person who participates or instigates a strike
which is deemed illegal under ESMA.
The ID Act, 1947, provided for the setting up of works committees (WCs) in all
undertakings employing over 100 workmen. The main objective of WCs was to resolve
conflicts at the plant level so that it would lead to good labour-management relations. (The
Industrial Policy Resolution of 1965 put into practice the idea of worker-participation in
management.) These WCs were constituted by an equal number of representatives of
employers and employees. Their functions include resolving matters related to
safety,welfare, education, vacation, holidays, etc. Matters like wages, allowances, bonus and
matters coming under collective agreements were excluded from its purview. The primary
objective behind setting up JMCs was to promote harmonious relations between labour and
management.
The other objectives were to increase productivity, secure better welfare facilities
for workers and help and train workers to understand their responsibilities and that of
management.JMCs and WCs were instituted by both private and public sector undertakings.
the early fifties, Giri, the then labour minister had put forward the Giri Approach which
emphasised the importance of voluntary negotiations between workers and their
managements in resolving disputes.
Gandhi’s approach to labour relations was also based on the moral principles of truth,
non-violence and voluntary arbitration of disputes.
Any seven or more employees are permitted to form a trade union in India, as
per the Trade Union Act, 1926. In order to limit the number of trade unions, the government
amended the act in 2001. Accordingly, trade unions are registered only if 10% or 100
workers (whichever is less) are members of a trade union, subject to a minimum of 7
workmen in an establishment or industry.
THEORIES IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Dunlop’s Systems Approach
System comprises input, processes, output and feedback. The systems can be either
influenced by the environment in case of open system or insulated from the environment in
case of closed system. He considered industrial relations as a part of society. He defined
Industrial Relations comprising of actors, contexts, ideology and rules.
The major criticism of Dunlop’s model was its emphasis on structure rather than on the
process and behaviour of actors. The behaviour of actors plays a crucial role in the
development of healthy industrial relations. The other important actor, customer, who is very
important in the competitive business environment and determines the market, is not part of
the systems approach and this is also another major criticism of this model. However,
Dunlop’s system approach is important in giving a framework which analyses the actors,
environment and rules of industrial relations.
Unitary Approach
The employer and employee work as a harmonious unit and they work for a common goal.
Hence, there is no possibility of conflicts arising between them and they work as a team
to attain the common goal.
According to Edwards (2003), ‘Any conflict that may occur is then seen as the result of
misunderstanding or mischief.’ Thus, conflict is perceived as disruptive. The concept
of loyalty is privileged in the unitarist approach because of its paternalist roots. Since there
exist direct relations between employer and employee, trade unions are considered as
unnecessary. The orientation and application of rules may be managerial but employees
are expected to be loyal and sincere to the organisation.
Pluralist Approach
The pluralist approach was developed in the United States of America by John R
Commons. He considered society as complex due to the presence of multiple interest
groups with their own goals.
Hence, conflict is inevitable in the system and there are possibilities of compromise
based on the interaction between different stakeholders.
Collective bargaining was used as a mechanism to sort out the conflict between the
employer and employees. The presence of trade union in an organisation can serve as an
interest group to protect the interest of employees.
According to Edwards (2003), ‘Pluralism was particularly salient in the approach of
management: instead of unitary denial that there was any rational basis for conflict,
managers should recognise the inevitability of dispute and seek means to regulate them.’
Employers understood the basis of conflict and were ready to negotiate with the trade union
in the overall interest of the organisation.
Radical Approach
The radical perspective or Marxian perspective is built on the assumption of power
conflict between two classes, i.e., capital and labour. This results in normative structures
and the institutionalised forms of industrial labour.
Social conflict is necessary for social change. It also argues that the state does not
play a neutral power but helps in consolidation of the power of the employer and their
representatives.
Marxist approach is a critique of pluralism. The economic change that happens due to
business cycle forces the government to intervene in the employer-employee relations.
Labour is subjugated by the domination of capital, and is unable to counter unilateral
changes in working conditions and the controls exerted by employers .The wage to be paid
to the labour is the point of conflict between the employer and employee.
The employer tries to pay as low as possible to increase his profit whereas the employee
tries to obtain wages as high as possible for his/her sustenance. Hence, “the formation of
collective organisation commonly involved a fight against repression by the state and brutal
resistance by employers”. Marx stresses that unions should not fight with effects but with the
causes of effects and articulates unions as the collective of workers for emancipation of the
working class.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Trusteeship Approach
Gandhi’s idea of industrial relations emerged from his engagement with workers throughout
his life. Of particular importance was his engagement with textile workers in Ahmedabad
during their strike in a mill in 1918.
Gandhi led their struggle to obtain a fair increase in wages, while at the same time ensuring
that the employer’s interests were also taken into account. Thus, Gandhi preferred a
harmonious and balanced approach to industrial relations where one side would
never dominate the other, but would take into account the other’s interest before
taking any decision. This does not mean that Gandhi’s ideas were exactly similar to that
of unitarists and completely different from Marxist thinking.
Along with Marx, Gandhi agreed with the ideals of a classless and stateless society. In
Gandhi’s view, wealth could never be privately held. Wealth would always be held by people
in trust of society. Thus, it was necessary for people to respond to the needs of society and
not use wealth or property for individual interests alone.
