The adjudicatory authorities, viz., Labor Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals, as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act are specialized Tribunals functioning outside the hierarchy of ordinary courts and are entrusted with the task of adjudication of industrial disputes. The concept of compulsory adjudication was statutorily ushered in with a view to providing a forum and compelling the parties to resort to the forum for arbitration so as to avoid confrontation and dislocation in the industry. If the legislature in its wisdom thought it better to provide for periodical payments rather than lump sum compensation, its wisdom cannot be doubted. The inhibition and difficulties which are being experienced by the legislature and the executive in bringing into force the amended industrial law, more due to judicial interpretation of the definition of ‘industry’ in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case, need to be removed. The experience of the working of the provisions of the Act would serve as a guide for a better and more comprehensive law on the subject to be brought into force without inhibition.

Labor management relations are a dynamic socioeconomic process. Both parties, namely, employer and employees, constantly strive to maximize their preferred values by applying resources to institutions. In their efforts, they are influenced by and influence others.1 In order to meet this situation, labor law seeks to evolve a rational synthesis between conflicting claims of the employers and employees. For that purpose, Industrial Adjudication plays a pivotal role in resolving the claims or industrial disputes. The word ‘industrial dispute’ means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor, of any person.2 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for the establishment of labor courts or industrial tribunals for adjudication of industrial disputes in India. At the judicial level, the freedom of contract has been disregarded and the process of collective bargaining has been substituted by industrial adjudication with the result that the process of settlement of disputes is no longer bilateral. Rather, it has become multidimensional. The terms of employment are struck in the context of law. Labor is represented by union as well as by the authority constituted under the law to bring about a socioeconomic transformation. The adjudicatory authorities, viz., Labor Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals, as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, are specialized Tribunals functioning outside the hierarchy of ordinary courts and are entrusted with the task of adjudication of industrial disputes. Although mainly they have to adjudicate upon the disputes that are referred to them by the appropriate governments, in exceptional cases, the parties may also make application to these bodies for adjudication of certain claims. The chief objective of the Industrial Disputes Act is to ensure peaceful settlement of industrial disputes through the compulsory adjudication method as an alternative to strikes and lockouts, which are inherent in the process of collective bargaining. Compulsory adjudication may be considered as the soul of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Law Review Journal, Industrial Disputes, Reinstatement, Employer Industrial Relations, Compensation, Course of Employment, Under Employees, Adjudication, Communication, Compensation, India.