1 of 4 pages
Go Slow – Cancer to Productivity
Over a period of time, we
have experienced that go-slow movement by the workers in various public utility
services such as banks, railways, transport services and airports etc. has
caused great inconvenience to the users.
The workers are resorting to these tactics under the garb of work to
rule for redressal of their justified or unjustified demands for which the
public at large do not feel much concerned.
For the knowledge of common man, it is desirable to know about various
legal aspects of the issue on the face of social aspects. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish
go-slow with strike because the general
feeling is that go-slow is less harmful to the organization as compared to strike
whereas the situation is entirely reverse.
We have seen that the
workers take the shelter of go-slow on the pretext of work to rule as if they are following the rules and regulations
for performing the particular task and it is not their responsibility if the
production goes slow by their act of observing the rules they try to project that their action is
natural and not deliberate.
What happens when
you deal with public
In order to understand the concept
of go-slow and work to rule we may take the example of railway computerized
reservation counters. When we go to the
reservation counter for booking a ticket, normally a queue is selected where
less number of people are standing and we stand in the queue with the hope that
our turn will come early as compared to the queues where large number of people
are standing. Sometimes it is observed
that in spite of selecting the queue with less number of people, the person
spends more time for obtaining a ticket as compared to the persons who were
standing in the queue with large number of people. We take this situation
normal giving the blame to the counter clerk as efficient or not efficient.
Here in this situation, one significant feature is that besides efficiency, the
concept of work to rule is also applicable because a particular clerk may
observe the things in a more methodological manner consuming more time as
compared to his counterpart, meaning thereby that a clerk may read the full
details of journey and amount on the computer as well as on the print out of
the ticket carefully and count the currency notes for his satisfaction
ascertain from the passenger that he got the exact amount in return giving him
the opportunity to count the notes in front of him on the counter, all these
processes consumes more time. We cannot call this delay as deliberate unless
and until he is absenting from the duty place for longer time. There may not be
any incentive attached for efficient working by one clerk as compared to
another that is why this situation occurs.
Though it looks as a go-slow but it is not a misconduct when he is doing
as per rules.
The basic criteria for
evaluating a particular go-slow on the pretext of work to rule is the motive
attached to it. In case it is deliberate and intentional, then it becomes the
misconduct. In the recent years, the go-slow movement of Air Traffic Controllers
at the Airports is also relevant to be studied.
Page
2 of 4
It appears that when the Management
felt that the go-slow was deliberate, the action was taken because the
efficiency level of almost all the controllers was almost equal but when go-slow movement started, the work efficiency
also reduced in a uniform manner which gave rise to the deliberate attempt on
the part of controllers whereas if it would have been a case of work to rule
the efficiency level would not have been uniform like in the case of railway
reservation clerks. However, still we
cannot give any definite opinion in this case because the matter is subjudice
and both parties may have their own say.
The Law has its own
saying:
Before going into various legal aspects of go-slow and the
verdict given by Supreme Court on this uncodified misconduct, it is relevant to
discuss about the concept of strike where the entire activity of the
organization is stopped. It is important to know about strike vis-à-vis go-slow because both are becoming the form
of showing resentment by the workers against the management as a matter of
protest for settlement of their justified or unjustified demands and grievances.
According to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, “strike” means “a cessation of
work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a
concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of
persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept
employment.” With this definition, we can see that strike is a planned
action and the cause and consequences are decided on the basis as to whether
the strike was legal or illegal. Regarding
prohibition of strikes, the provisions have been given in the Act which inter-alia
says that no person employed in a public utility service shall go on a strike
in breach of contract; - “Without
giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six
weeks before striking; Within fourteen
days of giving such notice; or Before the expiry of the date of strike
specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or During the pendency of any conciliation
proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion
of such proceedings.” This provision was given for the condition of
strike in the public utility service with the provision that on receipt of
strike notice, the employer should report the matter within five days to the
appropriate Government. There is general prohibition on strikes and it has been
stated that “no workmen who is employed in any industrial establishment
shall go on strike in breach of contract; -
During the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and
two months after the conclusion of such proceedings where a notification has
been issued under relevant sections, During any period in which a settlement or
award is in operation in respect of any of the matters covered by the
settlement or award.”
From the above description
of strike, it is clear that strike is a recognized weapon in the hands of
workers for their resentment and grievances, whereas there is no law, which
gives sanctity to go-slow.
Page
3 of 4
The Apex Court
In the case of “Bharat Sugar Mills
Ltd. v. Jai Singh 1961 II LL.J. 644 (647) S.C.” the Supreme Court held that :
“Go-slow which is a
picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen
pretending to be engaged in the factory is one of the most pernicious practices
that discontented or disgruntled workmen sometime resort to. It would not be far wrong to call this
dishonest. For while thus delaying
production and thereby reducing the output, the workmen claim to have remained
employed and thus to be entitled to full wages.
Apart from this also, ‘Go-Slow’ is likely to be much more harmful than
total cessation of work by strike. For
while during a strike much of the machinery can be fully turned off, during the
‘Go-Slow’ the machinery is kept going on a reduced speed which is often
extremely damaging to the machinery parts.
For all these reasons, “Go-Slow” has always been considered a serious
type of misconduct”.
In the above matter certain
workmen alleged to have been guilty of ‘Go-Slow’ were dismissed and the
application for permission to dismiss was filed. Domestic Inquiry was not found proper and the
employer adduced evidence before the Industrial Tribunal that some of the
concerned workmen were guilty of ‘Go-Slow’. The Industrial Tribunal accorded
permission to dismiss only one workmen – on appeal by special leave, the
decision of Industrial Tribunal was held wrong and reversed the permission
granted to dismiss the concerned workmen with effect from the date of judgement
in the appeal.
The
issue was further clarified by Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Musa Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan
and others, reported in 1959, 17 FJR-I. Whereas, it has held that ‘Go-Slow’ is a serious
misconduct in its nature and cannot be countenanced and it was not open to the
Industrial Tribunal when it was asked to give permission to dismiss 48 workmen
who took part in the Go-Slow to substitute some other kind of punishment and
give permission for that Under the circumstances, workmen who took part in ‘Go-Slow’ and were
found guilty of serious misconduct were dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the Supreme
Court.
Another question came as to whether wages of
the workmen adopting ‘Go-Slow’ tactics can be deducted? This position was clarified by the Supreme
Court in the case of Bank of India
Page
4 of 4
The issue regarding Strike – Whether Wages Can be Deducted and
legality of strike were also made clear since, legality of strike does not
always exempt the employees from the deduction their salaries for the period of
strike. It only saves them from a
disciplinary action since legal strike is recognized as a legitimate weapon in
the hands of the workmen to redress their grievances.
Further Right of Employer to deduct wages for absence from duty
it was Wages are payable only if the
contract of employment is fulfilled and not otherwise. Hence when the workers do not put in the
allotted work or refuse to do it they will not be entitled to wages
proportionately.
From
the foregoing description of strike, go-slow, work to rule and the Supreme
Court clarified that rulings on the issue of go-slow, it is clear that a
deliberate go-slow tactic on the part of worker is dangerous and unpardonable
especially when a recognized weapon such as strike and other grievance
redressal machineries are available to them for their justified demands.
Do we really work
for national cause?
The above issue mainly relates for demand of higher wages on the face of highly specialized stressful job. For that matter, now the stage has come that leaving the power of bargaining, the workers in the government sector should realize that one thing is supreme above all i.e the interest of the nation and the image in the eye of public. Certain amount of dedication and devotion to duty should be considered much above the bargaining power of taking the organization at ransom for the higher wages, perks and facilities. The workers in any specialized field can always demand the equivalency with their counterparts at the international level in other advanced countries but they forget to understand that our country is still in developing stage. What happens if a senior scientist in ISRO, DRDO, BARC, CSIR, NPL, NPC also start demanding wages equivalent to his counterpart at the international level. Because a senior scientist in other countries must be getting very high wages, perks, and facilities which our country may not be able to afford. Still our scientists get the recognition to the extent of getting Noble Prizes and they feel proud of being Indian. In the case of P. J. Gangadaram v. P.O. II Addl. Labour Court 1996 II LLJ 1234 (Mad.H.C.) it has been held that “Normal production efficiency was 90%. Notices were issued that petitioner was deliberately slowing down production. Even after the notices, petitioner continued to slow down production, while majority of other workmen restored normal production. From the circumstances wilfulness has to be inferred. What is in the mind of the person cannot be seen, but it has got to be observed or presumed from the conduct of a person with reference to particular act or incident. Petition is dismissed”.
No comments:
Post a Comment