- The document describes a case involving the termination of two electrical technicians, MQA and BSR, from the Indian Steel Plant in 1992. - An inquiry was conducted and found them guilty of misconduct towards their manager, leading to their termination in December 1992. - However, due to political influence from the ruling Congress Party union at the plant, a grievance committee took up their case urgently and ordered their penalties to be reduced instead of termination. - While a union representative argued this made the process unfair, others believed the technicians received a second chance through a grievance process as allowed, though political influence seemed to have pressured a hasty resolution of the case.

1. Case Analysis
Termination At Indian Steel Plant
By
Apoorv
Parmar
Kushaang
Deswal
Pulkit
Kapoor
Team
FOREians
FORE School
Of
Management

2. • 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

3. • 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…

4. • 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

5. • 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

6. • 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

7. • 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

8. 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
department
Grievance committee forced to perform the role which they are
not meant to do.

9. 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

10. 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

11. THANK
YOU
AND HERE WE SHALL REST OUR CASE.