Understanding Managerial Prerogatives, Sec. 11A, 33,33A: Restraints on Employers’ Powers and Workers’ Protections

The rights and powers inherent in management roles within an organization are referred to as managerial prerogatives. It denotes managers’ authority and discretion in making decisions. Managerial prerogative refers to managers’ ability to make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of the organization. It enables managers to set objectives and assign tasks to personnel. These prerogatives typically include the authority to hire, promote, transfer and dismiss employees. However, managerial prerogative is not absolute and is subject to legal and ethical constraints. Managers must operate within the context of employment laws, regulations, and corporate policies. They are supposed to use their power in a way to promote employees’ well-being. 

Principles of Sec. 33 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, addresses the issue of contravention of the rules. This aims to provide a remedy for aggrieved workers in cases where the employer violates the provisions of Section 33. 

Section 33(1)(a) of the Act states that an employer cannot change the working conditions of the employeesduring the pendency of a labour dispute before a tribunal. 

Similarly, Section 33(2)(b) requires the employer to seek authorization from the authority before dismissing or discharging a worker during pendency of a labour dispute.

Section 33A of the Act was inserted to provide an immediate remedy for workers aggrieved by the violation of Section 33. In order to seek redress under Section 33A, certain conditions must be met. The violation of Section 33 must have occurred during the pendency of the proceedings before a labour court or tribunal.

In this regard, it can be said that Section 33(1) and Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aim to protect the rights of workers and addresses the violations of working conditions during pendency of labour disputes.

Protected Workman

As per Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a protected workman is as any workman who is a member of the executive or office bearer of a registered trade union. In case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Annushakti Karamchari Union Rawatbhata, 1976, it was stated that a  protected workman is someone who enjoys immunity against being dismissed or discharged during adjudication or conciliation proceedings relating to an industrial dispute pending between the workmen and the employer. 

Nature of protection provided for Protected Workman

Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aims to provide a remedy for aggrieved workers in cases where the employer violates the provisions of Section 33. 

Section 33(1)(a) of the Act states that an employer cannot change the working conditions of the employeesduring the pendency of a labour dispute before a tribunal. 

Similarly, Section 33(2)(b) requires the employer to seek authorization from the authority before dismissing or discharging a worker during pendency of a labour dispute.Section 33A of the Act was inserted to provide an immediate remedy for workers aggrieved by the violation of Section 33. 

In order to seek redress under Section 33A, certain conditions must be met. The violation of Section 33 must have occurred during the pendency of the proceedings before a labour court or tribunal. In this regard, it can be said that Section 33(1) and Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aim to protect the rights of workers and addresses the violations of working conditions during  pendency of labour disputes. 

The need of restraints on Managerial Prerogatives as laid down in Sec. 33 and 33A

There is a need for restraints on managerial prerogatives to ensure a fair and balanced work environment. Section 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provide some restraints on managerial prerogatives. 

Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allows an aggrieved worker to file a written complaint with the appropriate authority if the employer violates Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 deals with the employer’s right to make changes to the working conditions of employees.

The restraints imposed by Section 33A ensure that employers cannot unilaterally change working conditions or take disciplinary actions without proper justification. It gives employees the right to seek redress directly from the adjudicatory body without going through a reference under Section 10 of the Act. By putting restraints on managerial prerogatives, Section 33A prevents exploitation, unfair treatment and abuse of power within the workplace.

Powers of the Industrial Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharges or dismissal of workmen under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The punishment is meant to deter employees from doing the same. The punishment depends on the degree of the misconduct. Thus, the employer has the right to undertake disciplinary action in a reasonable manner.

The imposition of punishment on the delinquent employee is the final stage of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority will impose the punishment upon receipt of the enquiry officer’s report. Before issuing a penalty order, the disciplinary authority must consider the degree of the misconduct and circumstances of the case. 

The disciplinary authority shall refer to the types of punishment enumerated in the organization’s Certified Standing Orders to decide the quantum of punishment.

The various types of punishments are as follows: 

(a) Warning 

(b) Fine 

(c) Withholding of Increments 

(d) Demotion 

(e) Suspension 

(f) Discharge 

(g) Dismissal

Among all the above discharge and dismissal are considered as the severe punishment imposed on a delinquent.

Discharge

Discharge of a workman from service is known as ‘major punishment’. In this punishment, the employer-workman relationship ceases to exist. Discharge as a punishment is milder than dismissal. The difference between the discharge and dismissal has been demarcated by Patna and Delhi High Court that in case of dismissal the workman loses a number of benefits whereas in case of discharge, only the contract of service is terminated and the workman is not deprived of the benefits.

Dismissal

Dismissal is the extreme punishment imposed on a delinquent workman. In case of dismissal, the employer has to comply with the requirements in the Certified Standing Orders or the Model Standing Orders inconsideration with the principles of natural justice. It puts a bar on the employer that a delinquent workman can be dismissed from services only after giving him an opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him by holding proper domestic enquiry.

Implication of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

It is the prerogative of the employer to impose suitable punishment in order to maintain industry discipline. However, it should be noted that the punishment imposed should not be disproportionate to the act of misconduct. Further, such punishment should not be the result of victimization or unfair labour practice. Therefore, by enacting Section 11A, the legislature has transferred the employer’s discretion in imposing the punishment of dismissal or discharge to the adjudicator. Now, it is the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to ultimately decide the degree of punishment. If the tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified it has the power not only to set aside the order of punishment but also to direct reinstatement. 

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Presiding Officer, it was held that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority as per the facts and circumstances of the case was disproportionate to prove misconductand therefore not justified.

In Rachhpal Singh Vs District Magistrate it was held that the Labour Court can interfere when the punishment imposed upon a workman is disproportionate.

In view of the above, it can be said that the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11A can interfere when the punishment awarded by the employer is disproportionate to the proved guilt.