1-Relationship between capital and labour is very complex. Law regulate conduct of different organ of State. Industry and labour are both essential for a State’s economic growth, social justice and welfare. Generally wages is reward of any employee receive for their work. Industrial Jurisprudence is to a recent origin, which is based on principle of social justice and employee-employer relationship in light of constitutional philosophy. Industrial Jurisprudence is not a part of Marxist School of jurisprudence but it is closely related Sociological school. The labour legislation has been instrumental of making of industrial jurisprudence. Evolution of Industrial Jurisprudence is due to active interpretation of labour legislation by High Courts and Supreme Court. It has but only made a distinct contribution to the law relating to industrial relation, social security and minimum standard of employment but has innovated new methods and devised new strategies for providing access to justice to weaker section of society. In Indian Court has acted as protector of worker and some times played the role of legislator, where legislation is
2-Industrial jurisprudence has gained primacy and impetus during the post-Independence period, although its beginning may be traced back to the industrial revolution. It affects directly a considerable population of out country consisting of employers, workers and their families. The Industrial law has modified the traditional law relating to master and servant and cut down the old theory of laissez faire based on the freedom of contract in the larger interest of the community. Individual contracts have been in many respects substituted by a employer to hire and fire his workmen at his well is restrained. One who invests capital is no more a master and one who puts in labour is no more a servant. They are employer and employee; the former may hire the latter but he can no more fire him at his will.” In Industrial jurisprudence has three different perspective: (a) Employee, (b) The employers and (c) The State. The role of State is pre dominate. For example: Industrial Dispute can be adjudicated by Labour Court when reference is sent by Government. For employee standpoint, now single individual worker moved from an individual one to one relationship with their employers to a collective unionized approach. Trade Union exercised significant influenced on employer and government particularly in policy making at micro level from the perspective of employers. They have to share a minimum amount for welfare of workers. The role of Government is duel character. On the one side there is maximum welfare of workman, on the other side increase production of goods to strength economy.
3-Right to Form Association including Trade Union is fundamental right. Supreme Court in B.R. Singh and Others Vs Union of India & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 710, held that : “The right to form associations or unions is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act provides for registration of a trade union if all the requirements of the said enactment are fulfilled. The right to form associations and unions and their registration was recognized obviously for conferring certain rights on trade unions. The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labour. Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour. The strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the managements. This bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has been recognized by almost all democratic countries. Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognized as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers. But the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it. These are to be found in Sections 10(3), 10-A(4-A), 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”In T.K Rangarajan Vs Government of T.N and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 581, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike.
4-Industrial jurisprudence can be traced to enactment of several labour laws. The purpose of the labour laws is to secure health, welfare and safety of working class and protection against exploitation. In 19th century, there was traditional concept of master servant relationship which was changed in 20 century due to development and recognization of service jurisprudence. Slichter, in his book Union Policies and Industrial Management defines industrial jurisprudence as being synonymous with job security, which compromises seniority as determining factors in layoff, promotion and transfer, control of entrance to the organization or trade in job assignment and process of negotiated management of change and work method for introduction of new machinery and negotiated wage rate. The first National Commission on Labour has made following observation : “The growth of industrial jurisprudence in India subsequent to 1950 bears close resemblance to the growth of Constitution law in relations to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens Industrial jurisprudence… seeks to evolve a rational synthesis between conflicting claim of the employers and the employees. Leaving aside the case of minimum wages which the employer must pay, in the matter of other wages higher than the category of the minimum wages, and in regard to other matters which come under the category of industrial disputes, industrial jurisprudence does and should always try to examine the merits of the rival contentions and seek to resolve the conflict by evolving solutions which do no injustice to the employers and fully meet the employees’ legitimate claims. In finding out solutions to industrial disputes great care is always taken, as it ought to be, to see that the settlement of industrial disputes does not go against the interests of the community as a whole. In the decision of major industrial disputes, three factors are thus involved. The interests of the employees which have received constitutional guarantees under the Directive Principles, the interests of the employers which have received a guarantee under Article 19 and other articles of Part III, and the interest of the community at large which are so important in a Welfare State. It is on these lines that industrial jurisprudence has developed in the last two decades in India.”
5-So matter related to workman and Industry, a great caution should adopt by adjudicating authority. Some
time workmen are so poor, that even he can’t approach to his representative to defend his case. On the other side hand employers are economically strong with a team of legal expert. State also participate in all proceeding to protect industrial peace. But adjudicating authority must keep in mind the jurisprudential aspect of labour laws. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs Rudhan Singh (2005) 5SCC 591, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed A labour dispute should be resolved expeditiously and there is no justification for the State Government to sleep over the matter and make a reference after a long period of time at its sweet will. It causes prejudice both to the workman and also to the employer. It is not possible for an employer to retain all the documents for a long period and then to produce evidence, whether oral or documentary, after years as the officers, who may have dealt with the matter, might have left the establishment on account of superannuation or any other reason. The employer is not at fault if the reference is not made expeditiously by the State Government, but it is saddled with an award directing payment of back wages without having taken any work from the concerned workman. The plight of the workman who is thrown out of employment is equally bad as it is a question of survival for his family and he should not be left in a state of uncertainty for a long period.