INDUSTRIAL VIOLENCE and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

- Case Studies Of Graziaoni and Pricol Conflicts

ABSTRACTWe begin by a literature review discussing the various legislations in India in regards to Industrial Disputes. Then we further present the case facts and stake holder analysis of unfortunate events of Pricol and Grazioni conflicts. Then we have presented our learnings and the conclusion on both cases.

Group 07– BM Section CDated: 13th March, 2015

Aayush Sharma (B14126)Ashish Bhatia (B14138)Gagandeep Singh (B14143)Karan Chhabra (B14149)Mugdha (B14157)Divya Aggarwal (FB14007)

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2

Literature Review........................................................................................................................................2

Industrial disputes in the recent past..........................................................................................................3

Legislative provisions to prevent and resolve industrial disputes...............................................................5

The Trade Unions Act, 1926:...................................................................................................................5

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946...............................................................................5

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:..................................................................................................................5

PRICOL CONFLICT........................................................................................................................................7

COMPANY OVERVIEW:................................................................................................................................7

COLLABORATIONS:..................................................................................................................................7

THE PRICOL STRUGGLE...............................................................................................................................8

Genesis of the Struggle............................................................................................................................8

Timeline...................................................................................................................................................8

STAKEHOLDER’S VIEWPOINT.....................................................................................................................10

Owners/shareholders:...........................................................................................................................10

management:........................................................................................................................................11

Workers.................................................................................................................................................11

Police & Government............................................................................................................................11

Trade Unions.........................................................................................................................................11

GRAZIAONI CONFLICTS.............................................................................................................................12

Overview...................................................................................................................................................12

The Timeline..............................................................................................................................................12

STAKEHOLDER’S VIEWPOINT.....................................................................................................................14

Owners (Shareholders)..........................................................................................................................14

Managerial Personnel............................................................................................................................14

Workers.................................................................................................................................................14

Police and Government.........................................................................................................................14

Trade unions..........................................................................................................................................14

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (TABLE 1)..........................................................................................................16

Learnings and conclusion..........................................................................................................................17

References................................................................................................................................................19

INDUSTRIAL VIOLENCE & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - CASE STUDIES OF GRAZIAONI AND PRICOL CONFLICTS

IntroductionIndian industrial relations have been shaped primarily by three legislations which are The Trade Unions Act, 1926 (TUA); The Industrial employment Act, 1946 (IEA) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA). Trade unions all over are viewed as a threat by employers and their independent identity and power is considered as a hindrance among employers for restructuring. In Indian context, the labor unions have been regulated by state which supported their affiliation on account of vote banks. However with the advent of economic reforms in nineties along with the focus of the government to attract more capital, there are evidences of shift in government labor policy in favor of employers. This impacted the labor relations in different industries differently. In some industries it resulted in higher employment but more of contract workforce at the cost of permanent workers. However it resulted in favor of employers which could formulate a system of policies based on their interests. It can be said that disruption of peaceful harmony among unions with shift of power paved the way for industrial violence.

Literature ReviewAccording to Sen (2011) multinational companies have proved their excellence in operations but the existence of best practices is not so evident, moreover many of the practices implemented by managers have actually caused unrest and inferior industrial relations. There are evidences that management at multinationals have failed to understand the industrial laws and prevalent cultures in their geography of operations be it India or other emerging countries. The issues of unrest among workers have ranged from pay differentials to treatment differential of contract workers and recognition of trade unions.

As per Stephen Frenkel and Sarosh Kuruvilla (2002); in the era of globalization the nature of employment relations is determined by the interaction of three forces which are different and independent of each other – competition, industrial peace and employment income protection. The author also gave evidence that the three forces are affected by other five factors which include the intensity of globalization, strength of the union, features of labor market, strategy for economic development and how responsive the government is to workers. Based on the interaction of the three forces and factors affecting them the

study showed that the employment relations in India show unstable patterns with lack of flexibility for changing leading to employer and union dilemmas. However the supportive response of government to workers concerns along with strong unions maintained the force of industrial peace and employment income protection stable and strong.

The Indian industrial relations system has been chained under old shackles of pre independence era and has yet to become dynamic. Characterized by high centralization with close union relationships of state being the mediator limited the development of a strong foundation for peaceful relations. Major challenges for Indian system are to cater to the diverse demographical profile of workers along with understanding the needs of women workers. (Hill, 2009)

According to Sundar (2010), the response of the State, trade unions and employers towards the dynamic environment and globalization era post 1991 shaped the structure of employment relations. The industrial relation system was characterized by the rules of state institutions before LPG policy. The LPG policy made the environment more dynamic and complex with states making amendments to labor laws along with central laws to attract capital to their regions. Managerial strategies were devised in pretext of labour flexibility to weaken power of labor. The focus was hiring of contract workers a lot to circumvent the laws. As per the case fact – In Indian manufacturing industry the share of contract workers in comparison to total workers increased to 26.4% in 2004-05 from

14.6 % in 1995-96. The forces interacted to create an environment which gave flexibility to workers but also reduced the union power.

Indian industrial relations have evolved through four phases which are 1950 to mid-1960s, mid 1960s to 1979, 1980 to 1991 and 1992 to 2000. The LPG phase of 1992 to 2000 led to increased flexibility of labor employment, less government intervention and stronger managerial power. This had both a positive and negative side to it as though it led to more employment but it led to reducing power of organized labor. (Bhattacherjee, 2001)

Industrial disputes in the recent past

Indian industry has undergone major changes since the liberalization in 1991. The economy is more open to the global competition therefore more and more industries are coming up in India. Most of these companies prefer management of work force through various committees which have led to a decline in the trade union activities. The increase in IT industries and other knowledge based service industries has further decreased it. But in the last decade, we have again seen a rise in number of unrests and disputes in the industry. Some of the major incidents are as follows:

Graziano Transmissioni : 2008, a mob of 200 dismissed employees forcefully barged in and in one of the worst cases of industrial violence cases, killed the MD/CEO of the unit

Graphite India Ltd – Powmex Steel division: 2011, Car of DGM (operations) was stopped by some suspended workers and set on fire which proved to be fatal

Allied Nippon: 2010, the assistant general manager was stoned to death by the angry

worker who were being replaced by the cheaper and exploited contract workers.

Pricol:2009,Vice-president(human resources) was killed near Coimbatore after the company sacked few employees on grounds of indiscipline

Maruti Suzuki: 2012, A company official was burnt to death by a mob of workers demanding hike in wages and various other allowances.

Honda: 2005, Violence and lockout due to unsatisfactory working conditions and manager’s behavior.

All these incidents in the recent past indicate that unrest and dissatisfaction toward managerial decisions have made the workers resort to a violent alternative. The following figure shows the reasons of strikes since 2005. It leads to loss of human life as well as huge monetary loss to the companies

.

Legislative provisions to prevent and resolve

industrial disputesIn the growing global economy, industrial violence is a major concern for the Government. It discourages MNS and global companies from setting up their business in the company. But, currently the legislative system seems to be inadequate to address the changes brought about by the globalization. There are 44 central labour laws and above 100 state labour laws, many of which were drafted way before independence and fail to address the new changes. The three central acts governing industrial disputes are:

The Trade Unions Act, 1926: Enacted by the British Government under the recommendation of Royal Commission of Labour. The act covers law relating to formation of trade unions. “Trade Union” means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen, or between employers and employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and includes any federation of two or more Trade Unions: Provided that this Act shall not affect—

(i) any agreement between partners as to their own business;

(ii) any agreement between an employer and those employed by him as to such employment; or

(iii) any agreement in consideration of the sale of the goodwill of a business or of instruction in any profession, trade or handicraft.”

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: This act aims at laying down the laws for defining the work contract and conditions of work by issuing standing orders. The main aim of the act is to remove any undue flexibility of the employer to change terms of job, hours, timing, leave grant, productivity measures etc. The standing orders mandate that the employer classify its employees, state the shifts, payment of wages, rules for vacation, rules for sick leave, holidays, rules for termination amongst others

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The act has its roots in the colonial system. Section 81A states that strikes and lockout can’t be conducted. If there is a dispute it should be resolved by Government appointed judicial agency. The judicial agency will decide on an award to resolve the matter.

The two ways to resolve disputes are:

Free collective bargaining: Trade Union and management negotiate terms and conditions of employment. Either party may give threat of strike or lockout.

Company adjudication: Case is heard in labour court. Strike/lockout is not

necessary. Thus industry is not affected and the case is heard in a court.

With the increasing number of cases of industrial disputes and violence, there is a

need to review these laws and understand factors to be considered in deciding the future course.

PRICOL CONFLICT

COMPANY OVERVIEW:

Established in 1972 and commencing commercial production in 1975 at Coimbatore, with an initial installed capacity of 4 Lakh number Dashboard Instruments, Premier Instruments & Controls Limited, is an automobile ancillary unit and it later diversified into Electronic Control Instruments, Precision Machine Tools, Panel and Sensor Instruments for Defense and Industrial Gauges. Its main line of business remains that of manufacturing automotive instruments and allied accessories.

To grow its business in the upcoming automotive cluster of Gurgaon and serve the existing customers in less time, company installed an assembling unit at Gurgaon, Haryana with an installed capacity base of 5 Lakh numbers of dashboard instruments. The commercial production in Gurgaon unit commenced on April 1998.

Emerging as a market leader, with a share of about 50% of all the OEM requirements of the domestic market, company increased its installed capacity from 4 Lakh numbers to 34.5 Lakh numbers of Dashboard instruments catering to the needs of almost all the vehicle manufacturers along with meeting 40 % of the demand of replacement market through a countrywide distribution network.

Starting in 1985, PRICOL begin exporting its products with a turnover of Rs 2.88 Lacs, which grew to Rs 752 Lakhs in financial year ending 31st March 1994.

Company is the first among the few and only one in the automotive instrumentation sector to obtain the coveted ISO 9001 Certificate in the country.

COLLABORATIONS: 1. During the year 1985, the Company entered into technical collaboration with M/s. NS International Ltd., U.SA. (Subsidiary of M/s. Nippon Seiko Co. Ltd., Japan) for up gradation of existing Technology in the manufacture of Dashboard Instruments for Two Wheelers. The technology has been fully absorbed.

2. During the year 1991-92, company entered into technical collaboration with M/s. Nippondenso Co. Ltd. Japan for up gradation of Technology in the manufacture of four-wheeler Instruments, thereby improving upon its existing quality levels and manufacturing methods to keep pace with the international technologies in the instrumentation field.

THE PRICOL STRUGGLEThe Pricol struggle is one of its kind as there were so many parties which came together for the struggle. All permanent worker, ancillary unit workers and contract laborers joined the union led by AICCTU. It was also supported by the law students, civil rights activists and Dalit organizations. The struggle was against several unjust practices followed by the management: sham contract labour system, satellite vendor systems, victimization of laborers through closure, denial of wage increase and termination of workers were few of them. Thus workers demanded the government to intervene and pass orders under Section 10B of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The struggle which started in 2007 and continued till 2009 had a very frightening end. Workers bravely fought with management and succeeded in making strikes which lasted for several months. The management tried to threaten workers by branding them as a ‘Maoist-Leninist’ leadership. The uproar and struggle led to the murder of Pricol HR vice-president Roy George in Coimbatore.

Genesis of the StruggleIn order to increase margins, management led to unjust practices like sham Contract labour and Satellite Vendor system.

To weaken the collective bargaining it had developed five independent unions. Worker were devoid of their rights for decades which led to eruption of the anger amongst the labours.

The final blow that led to disruption was when the vanguards of the newly formed unions in plant 1 and 3 were vindictively transferred. They received an overwhelming support of the permanent workers as well as the workers of the sham contract labour and satellite vendor systems, which led to a powerful strike from 3rd March, 2007.

Timeline

Phase 1

This phase was marked by strong discontent by employees in the form of strikes. More than 3000 workers were involved.

9-03-2007: Women played an instrumental role and staged a ‘Road Roko’ in Coimbatore.

10-3-2007: Dharna, strikes continued in front of the factory.

25-03-2007: Fast in Coimbatore city by 4000 workers.

28-03-2007: Matter was taken up in state assembly.

3-04-2007: Police resorted to lathi charge outside the factory to stabilize the mob.

The management announced a partial lockout for 164 workers, 11 vanguards, and break in service for 134 workers.

10-04-2007: Strikes continued demanding government to intervene pass orders under section 10(1) & 10(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

The unions and the management obtained stay on the order prohibiting the continuation of strikes and prohibiting continuation of lockouts respectively.

Phase 2

Unions wanted government to pass order under section 10B of Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

23-04-2007: Workers and children covered their faces with black cloth in protest.

Even other factory workers sent telegrams to government for 10B orders.

24-05-2007: Government finally passed 10(1) and 10B orders. Thus management was ordered not give effect to break in service, partial lockouts and not to employ recruits taken during strike period.

26-05-2007: Strike was withdrawn.

Phase 3

The management then turned to victimization measures. Satellite Vendor Units were closed down and the workers associated with it were terminated.

Wage increase was denied by the firm which violated the settlements.

13-07-2007: Workers were attacked by local hooligans.

28-07-2007: Hundreds of workers gathered for a public meeting.

13, 15, 17 -08-2007: Slogans were raised by workers and 114 workers were demoted.

Management refused to give wages to workers.

Pricol workers collected thousands of signatures demanding amendment in the Trade Unions Act. This amendment was aimed at providing recognition of trade union through secret ballot.

5-04-2008: Massive hunger strike in Coimbatore.

10-06-2008: Management created a concentration camp for the partially locked out workers who returned to work.

21-08-2008: More than thousand workers courted arrest. 16 workers were arrested and management partially locked out 170 workers.

24-08-2008: Conciliation officer helped to arrive at a conclusion. Only 16 workers arrested will be partially locked out.

2-8-2008: Pricol workers participated in the AICCTU’s national conference and got elected as leaders of AICCTU.

Phase 4

Management started with some tactical and resorted to divide and rule. The General Secretary of the two fighting unions went over to the side of the management.

10-12-2008: The management deducted salaries of 183 workers.

12-12-2008: 41 workers were dismissed.

18-12-2008: Two unions conducted their elections and leaders were elected unanimously.

Phase 5

Unrest leading to second 10B orders.

15-06-2009: Beginning of indefinite fast by Pricol workers.

30-06-2009: Leaders of various parties assemble to speak on a calling attention motion on the indefinite fast of Pricol workers. Assembly concluded with demands of workers being accepted.

19-09-2009: 42 employees were dismissed for disciplinary reasons.

On 22-09-2009 Pricol VP HR was murdered on an issue regarding reinstating 42 dismissed workers.

STAKEHOLDER’S VIEWPOINTOWNERS/SHAREHOLDERS:

Promoters and their associates led by Mr. Vijay Mohan own 35.83% of the company’s shares and thus are the majority shareholders of the company. Along with them, DENSO Corporation, Japan holds 12.5% of the company’s shares. The institutional investors (Mutual Funds) along with public hold the other major chunk of 44% of the PRICOL’S shares.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Figures given pertain to 2007, when the conflict first started. Displayed below in the picture is 2010 shareholding pattern for a comparison.

For gauging the sentiments of the shareholders, below is a snapshot of the financial performance overview between 2000 and 2009:

YEAR DOMESTIC SALES EXPORTS TOTAL SALES2000 179.10 22.19 201.32009 476.50 137.50 614.0

Increase in Total sales to the tune of about 205 % along with a major increase in exports and thus reduction of exposure and reliance of the company to vagaries of Indian economy is enough to portray the comfortable position enjoyed by the shareholders of the organization.

To maintain the pole-position in midst of cutthroat competition and increasing number of auto parts vendors including the ones having global presence such as

Capparo, continuous growth was needed to stave off any hostile attempt of takeover of the company. Also, it was in favor of the Shareholders that any lockout/strike should be refrained to and the conflict is permanently resolved. This is because, longer the period of non-production, greater the decrease in revenue and profits of the firm which could be distributed to the shareholders. But, also at the same time, windfall gains for the worker would

not find favor with Shareholders for the same reason of dilution of profits for them.

MANAGEMENT:

Management had one of the most important stakes in the whole episode as it was on the front end dealing with Trade unions. Also, the direct effect of any judgment in this regard would have had a direct impact on the day to day functioning of the plant in terms of work culture operations of the Plant.

To decrease the cost of operations, management resorted to the use of Satellite vendor systems and sham contract labour to decrease dependency on permanent workers and thus their bargaining power.

On 03.04.07, workers entered the factory premises and staged a strike up to 10 pm. In retaliation of this event management reacted with partial lockout for 164 workers and then for another 11 vanguards and break in service for 134 workers.

But for the management, the darkest day in the conflict was 21.09.09, when Roy George, Vice President (Human Resources) was attacked with rods by a group of workers and he succumbed to the injuries couple of days later.

WorkersWorkers were devoid of their basic rights and it was just on their part to protest. The ordinary workers who depend on the organization for their livelihood, who work hard to earn more incentive were the ultimate sufferers.

The workers staged protests and strikes and the management resorted to victimization, thus fuelling the agitation.

This agitation and hatred exceeded its extremes when the workers attacked the VP HR.

Police & GovernmentPolice successfully controlled the mob during the times of strikes and lockouts. However this led to increased agitation amongst the workers. The police also went against the worker by subjecting them to Lathi Charge.

The government intervened whenever necessary and supported the rights of workers. They passed required orders whenever necessary. However prompt actions from the government could have prevented the agitation at the early stages.

Trade UnionsTrade unions which were meant to support the workers were not able to fulfil its responsibility. Leaders of these unions were supporting management to promote their self-interests.

Graziaoni Conflicts

Overview

Noida, is situated next to capital of India and has been a lucrative place for many multinational corporations to open their offices. Graziano Transiminsioni, which is an Italy based manufacturer of automobile components was one among over 24 MNC’s located in SEZ, Noida. SEZ refers to the special economic zones being pushed by the government of India to move ahead in its path of growth and industrialization.

On September 22, 2008 the Chief executive officer (CEO) and head of Indian operations, Lalit Kishore Chowdhary, died in office premises due to head injury. It is noted that there was a meeting with some of the dismissed employees which broke into violence. Police security which was present there did not arrested anyone at the time of the death. It was only in the evening that workers were arrested for alleged murder.

This case presents a very good example of the happenings and suffering of not only with the workers at Grazioani but also across the country. It shows that how every stakeholder tries to maximize their benefit from the situation. This includes capitalists, police, employees, politicians, corporate rivals and trade unions.

What initially maybe looked as a murder can also be interpreted as workers becoming the targets of harassment by the managers and facing repression from the state.

The TimelineSituation before 2 December, 2007: Working hours increased from 8 to 12 in 2 shifts. Workers allege that no weekly holidays were given and those who did not comply were thrown out.

2 December, 2007: First disputes over raise of wages by employees on the claim that punch time cards were not done properly.

Worker wanted to form a trade union, but their application got rejected three times by labor office. It is said that labour office was working in collusion. So they affiliated with AITUC, Trade union of CPI party.

4 December, 2007: A settlement took place.

7 December, 2007: Settlement repudiated by employer. AITUC sided with the management to restore “normalcy” for later negotiations. Workers refused to accept it and AITUC abandoned the workers.

Such determination from workers, forced management to enter in a written

agreement in presence of DLC, Deputy Labour Commissioner. Wages were revised homogeneously incrementing Rs1200 per year.

February 2008: Management hired 400 contract workers.

Regular workers claimed that these contract workers used to bring iron rod and used to threaten regular workers.

A security team was also appointed in February. Regular workers perceived it as a battalion of armed goons more than security with a purpose of replacing regular workers with contract workers.

May 2008: 5 apprentices or trainee workers were dismissed. Workers demanded that the 5 dismissed trainee workers be reinstated back. On this demand, 27 more workers were suspended.

It is claimed that employers at this time reversed the exhaust fan, allegedly to teach workers a lesson which led to increase in working temperature beyond tolerable levels.

30 May 2008: 30 workers were locked out charged with committing affray. Each was released only after the signed a bond of Rs. 1 lac, which they would have to pay if they repeated the “offence”.

19 June 2008: 97 workers locked out. 190 permanent workers continued to work inside.

Workers now affiliated to CITU, trade union front of political party CPM. Again CITU sided with the management to restore “normalcy” for later negotiations. Workers

refused to accept it and CITU, also, abandoned the workers.

Workers then joined HMS, trade union front of Rashtriya Lok Dal Party.

2 July 2008: Remaining 192 regular workers also locked out.

11 July 2008: Settlement in presence of DLC at Noida. But instead of reinstating 27 suspended workers as decided in settlement, only 12 were reinstated.

In that time, workers were pressing the issue and employer got a work order barring any protest or agitation within 300 meters of factory premises.

Further meeting were held but they were inconclusive.

Finally, it was agreed by HMS leaders that workers would apologize on or before 22 September 2008

22 September 2008: workers gathered to apologize but only 2 were allowed to enter at a time. Allegedly, at the time of apology, office security personnel forced workers to write that they had indulged in violence. Some workers wrote, maybe under pressure, while others refused. A scuffle started and hearing the commotion other workmen and security goons entered the gates. They fired in the air. And many workers were injured as well.

Police did not intervene and police officer was suspended later for “dereliction of duty”.

Situation got out of hand, and CEO died because of head injury. Was it a murder is still not confirmed and who did it? Was it

some double crossing goons as stated by CEO’s brother or was it because CEO jumped from first floor to ground floor looking at the commotion as stated by his driver?

In the evening, media defamed the workers and arrests were done by police. 63 people were charged with murder and 74 were arrested for rioting and affray.

Since then, many workers sat on October 2, 2008 for protest at Jantar Mantar. But Government led by chief minister Mayawati appointed special police protection for other industrialists’ security.

Serious concern has been expressed by many on the issue. And there has been a sharp decline in India’s workforce from organized sector.

The issue became a national sensation.

Stakeholder’s viewpointOwners (Shareholders) Italian manufacturer firm, Graziano, had setup their plant at Noida mainly for cost cutting. Most of the produce was exported.

Managerial PersonnelThe death of CEO L.K. Chaudhry was unfortunate. In the press release, they blamed the “individuals with no relation to the company” for carrying the attack and commotion.

Prime motto of mangers is usually set as increasing the operating efficiency and reducing cost. It is possible, that they preferred contract labour because they

came at lower wages (Rs.2200 as compared to Rs. 3200 of permanent workers) and could be laid off during non-peak season easily.

WorkersThose who were conducting protests for their jobs and livelihood were put behind bars, citing murder charges. They were also injured in the incident and rested in help of trade unions led by political parties to support them. The incident actually went against them as the media portrayed them as murderer and they were easily laid off after the incident.

Police and GovernmentIt is the job of police to preserve law and order in the state. Police though present at the time of incident did not do anything. Apparently, they had less power as compared to management as all of those who were arrested those supporting the management were released. They have arms and power to overtake any situation esp. in case of commotion. But it useful only if they act as per the law and not as per the wishes of rich.

The police officer was suspended later for “dereliction of duty”.

Government supported other industrialists by providing extra security.

Trade unionsHMS was the one who finally took their issue. These trade unions are usually the wings of political parties. Though their primary job is to identify common interests

between employee and employer so that a negotiation can be established but apparently, many trade unions have

political interests. These trade union are formed under Indian Trade Union Act 1926.

Stakeholder Analysis

Stake-holders

Involvement in Issue

Interest in Issue

Influence / Power

Resources / Position

Impact of issue on stakeholder

Italian firm Firm owners: Sent their consultants, appointed India head and interacted with Italian Embassy

Setup the plant in 1998 in India. Most output was exported. Hence cost cutting was the major concern

High power because they have invested their capital.

100% Owner of the Indian subsidiary. A multinational corporation with high financial resources

Factory reopened after a week of CEO's death.

Management

Laid off employees. CEO killed

Cost reduction, operating profit of factory

Power to lockout. Power to set wages and the strength of workers.

High position in terms of contact with politicians, police, labor courts and other government authorities

They could now easily target workers in media and laid them off. They finally got contract labor on roll easily

Workers Conducted protest for better workplace and replacement of permanent employees by contract employees.

Their jobs, livelihood was at stake

Vulnerable migrants from other states, regularly subjected to threats, and abuse.

Denied their rights. Could not form a union. Approached trade unions of such as HMS, CITU which were fronts of political parties

Many arrested, with charges of murder. Other laid off from the job.

Trade unions

Initially AITUC and CITU abandoned the labour. Finally HMS

Political interests. Job -To identify common interest

Generally divided on political lines.

Powers under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926

Various trade unions came together and did an independent study to show

took the issue.

between employee and employer and to facilitate negotiations.

the suffering of workers.

Police and Government

Was present at the time of incident, but did not do anything.

It was their job to preserve law and order

Apparently, they had less power as compared to management as all of those who were arrested those supporting the management were released.

They have arms and power to overtake any situation esp. in case of commotion. But it useful only if they act as per the law and not as per the wishes of rich

Police officer was suspended later for “dereliction of duty”. Government supported other industrialists by providing extra security

Learnings and conclusion

More sensitization towards the grievances of workers is required. Management should not push them to the limits of rebellion.

Thorough investigation should be done so as to bring justice to the truly deserved. Trade unions should be work independent of political parties and other influences so

that they don’t act as police force to keep a check on workers.

Serious concern need to be be expressed in terms of huge Indian workforce which continues in unorganized sectors.

The profit and growth of the firm should be shared with workers. Their wages should increase with respect to set benchmarks and working conditions should be improved.

Graziano confict was not the first of its kind to have occurred in the area. Daewoo, Yamaha Motors and Goenka Power also have witnessed use of power in dealing with conflicts with the workers.

Questions remains whether it was just a death of a CEO or was there a huge pain of workers dying everyday which is buried inside the official reports. Who committed the real violence? Is the problem much deeper than it appears?

We understand that aggressive management policies do not work in long term and present loss to both parties.

Moreover, it does not take long for labor related issues to gain escalation and need to be handled very sensitively.

Finally, most important aspect is any industrial dispute case is communication between management and workers. It needs to be built and should not stop at any level.

References

Bhattacherjee, D. (2001). The evolution of Indian industrial relations : A comparative perspective. Industrial Relations Journal, 244-260.

Hill, E. (2009). The Indian Industrial Relations System: Struggling to Address the Dynamics of a Globalizing Economy. Journal of Industrial Relations, 395-410.

KURUVILLA*, S. F. (2002). Logics of Action, Globalization and changing employment relations in China, India, Malaysia and the Philippines. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 387-411.

Sen , R. (2011). Multinationals & Industrial Relations in India. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 367-383.

Sundar, K. S. (2010). Emerging Trends in Employment Relations in India. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 585-595.

Krishnan K. (2008). Who committed the real violence at Graziano Transmissioni? Accessed from the World Wide Web on March 11, 2015. http://sanhati.com/news/998/#sthash.tl9fpqe3.dpuf

Tyagi R. Report on the Workers’ Struggle in Graziano Transmissioni His report is based upon an interview of two workers of Graziano Transmissioni, namely Kapil Kumar and Ajay Dwivedi. Accessed from the World Wide Web on March 12, 2015. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv14n2/graziano.htm

Press release by Oerlikon Graziano India, Delhi - India, September 22 -2008 titled Incident at Oerlikon Graziano India. Accessed from the World Wide Web on March 11, 2015. http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/files/oerlikon_Oerlikon_Graziano_India

CGPI.org Graziano Trasmissioni workers. Condemn the persecution of workers by the state! The struggle for justice shall continue! Accessed from the World Wide Web on 13 March, 2015 http://www.cgpi.org/mel/struggle-rights/2377-graziano-trasmissioni-wor

News Articles :

Lalit Kumar, TNN, Sep 23, 2008, 01.24AM IST : Dismissed employees beat CEO to death

London Times, Published September 23, 2008 : CEO Bludgeoned to Death in India by Fired Employees

Website accessed via the World wide Web as on 12th March , 2015:

http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2009/nov_09/special_feature.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Dismissed-employees-beat-CEO-to-death/articleshow/3513395.cms September 23, 2008

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/workplace-violence/article1569084.ece

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/terror-reigned-at-allied-nippon-workers-110111800105_1.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-12-arrested-for-murder-of-pricol-v-p-near-coimbatore-1292572

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/maruti-manesar-plant-violence-due-to-internal-issues-sit/1/224999.html

http://www.ficci.com/spdocument/20188/Industrial-unrest.pdf

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/32075/64876/E26IND01.htm