Abstract
This paper will deal with general issues in Indian industrial relations. We will first summarize those aspects of the Indian economic and political system which are pertinent to an appraisal of industrial relations. Industrial relations policies reflect the past record as well as future aspirations. This involves an understanding of the changing approaches of labour and management and current trends in policy formulation. A final section will consider the objectives which determine policy and conclude with a statement of needed new directions in research.
Department of Economics and the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A. I am indebted to the Office of International Programs and All University Research Grants for material assistance in the research leading up to this paper. Mr. V. N. Krishnan, graduate student in economics, helped me in the revision of this paper for publication in this volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For studies bearing on the political and economic environment, see Norman D. Palmer, The Indian Political System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961
Myron Weiner, Party Politics in India: The Development of a Multi-Party System, Princeton, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1957
S. L. Poplai, ed., 1962 General Elections in India, New Delhi, Allied Publishers, 1962
Wilfred Malenbaum, Prospects for Indian Development, Free Press of Glencoe, 1962
John P. Lewis, Quiet Crisis in India, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, 1962.
See Myron Weiner, The Politics of Scarcity, University of Chicago, 1962.
For a comprehensive general review of the traditional and post-Independence phases of government policy, see Charles A. Myers, Labor Problems in the Industrial-ization of India, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1958.
Anandjee, Community Regulation of Labor Management Relations in India (1947–1957), unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Law School, 1959.
See the related discussion in Bruce H. Millen, The Political Role of Labor in the Developing Countries, Washington, D.C., Brookings, 1963.
Information pertaining specifically to the labour activities of these groups is scanty. See D. B. Thengdi, Why Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh; Hindusthan Sahitya, 309 Shaniwar, Motibag, Poona 2
Swatantra Party, General Secretary’s Report, Third National Convention, February 1 and 2, 1964, Bombay, pp. 16–17.
See Charles A. Myers, op. cit., especially Chapters III, VI and VII. Also the insightful comments of G. L. Mehta, ‘Industrial Management’, in C. N. Vakil, editor, Papers in Economics, University of Bombay, School of Economics and Sociology, Bombay, 1947. The Report of the Royal Commission (pp. 339–341) and the Main Report (sections in Chapters IV and V on ‘Employment of Labour’) also deserve mention for appraisals of traditional weaknesses.
See C. A. Myers, ‘Recent Developments in Management Training in India’, Indian Journal of Public Administration, April–June 1958.
Progress in terms of collective agreements is reported in the following: International Labour Office, Indian Branch, Recent Developments in Certain Aspects of Indian Economy — III, New Delhi, 1956, pp. 109–137; and Employers’ Federation of India, Collective Agreements — A Study, Bombay, 1962. In addition, there are short notes from time to time in the Indian Labour Journal and Industrial Relations (Calcutta).
See Government of India, Second Five Year Plan, 1956, pp. 572–577.
See Government of India, Third Five Year Plan, 1961, p. 250.
For details, see Government of India, Consultative Machinery in the Labour Field (Labour Bureau Pamphlet — Series 1), 1959.
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Tripartite Conclusions, 1942–62, Delhi, 1962.
The texts of the Codes have been reproduced in S. A. Palekar, Problems of Wage Policy for Economic Development, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1962, pp. 313–317.
See Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Evaluation and Implementation Machinery (1961), and Recognition of Unions under the Code of Discipline (1962). The ILC discussions in 1962 specifically recognized the position of minority unions.
Institute of Economic Growth, The Worker Participation in Management: The Indian Experiment, University of Delhi, 1962, mimeographed.
See, for instance, Government of India, Central Board for Workers’ Education, Lectures and Synopses of Lectures (ed. by S. D. Punekar and B. C. Desai), Nagpur, Government Press, 1960, 418 pp. The gathering together of an unusually well-qualified group of speakers for the purpose of training teacher administrators is surely a worth-while achievement.
The following studies throw light on the Bombay situation: Gus Tolver Ridgel, A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1957
V. B. Kamath and Associates, A Case Study of Labour-Management Relations at the India United Mills Ltd. No. 1, Bombay, Bombay, Government Central Press (for Labour Welfare Institute), 1959, esp. p. 73.
Weak practices at the state level are noted by Pradeep Kumar, ‘Industrial Truce in the Emergency: Its Working in Rajasthan’, The Economic Weekly, September 14, 1963, pp. 1557–1558; and ‘Tripartite Consultative Machinery for Labour in the States: Rajasthan, A Case Study’, ibid., pp. 1407–1409.
Alfred Marshall, Elements of Economics of Industry, Vol. I, London, Macmillan, 1893, p. 401.
An inventory of research underway testifies to the growing professional interest. See Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Labour Bureau, Labour Research, 1963, Section III; Annotated Bibliography, pp. 61–132. See also Barbara Klingenhagen, ‘Indian Labour Relations: An American Bibliography’, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, July 1961, pp. 134–146.
Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1958, pp. 17–20.
David H. Bayley, ‘The Pedagogy of Democracy: Coercive Public Protest in India’, The American Political Science Review, September1962, pp. 663–672; and my article, ‘Management and Discipline in a Welfare State’, Economic Weekly, December 20, 1958. Germany’s difficulties provide a historical parallel.
Gaston V. Rimlinger, ‘The Legitimation of Protest: A Comparative Study in Labor History’, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, April 1960.
A good recent article is by Ronald G. Ridker, ‘Discontent and Economic Growth’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, October 1962, pp. 1–15.
These arguments have been developed in greater detail by Paul Fisher, ‘The Economic Role of Unions in Less-Developed Areas’, Monthly Labor Review, September 1961, pp. 951–956.
Thus, for the Bombay cotton textile industry, during 1959, man-days lost due to strikes amounted to 74,424 while other work stoppages not involving a direct conflict with the employer amounted to 193,529. For 1960, the figures were 134,782 and 42,088, the former being unduly swollen by a one-day general strike in July. See Annual Review, issued by the Millowners’ Association. Absenteeism has been discussed by Ralph C. James, ‘The Casual Labour Problem in Indian Manufacturing’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1960, pp. 100–116.
James J. Berna, S.J. Berna, in Industrial Entrepreneurship in Madras State, New York, Asia Publishing House, 1960, pp. 106–136, argues that the declining morale of entrepreneurs and workers due to undisciplined protest is much more serious than the immediate production losses.
See Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feldman, Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas, New York, Social Science Research Council, 1960.
See the discussion by E. H. Phelps-Brown, The Economics of Labor, Yale, 1962, pp. 58 and ff.
Clark Kerr, John T. Dunlop, Frederick Harbison and Charles A. Myers, Industrialism and Industrial Man, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1960, Chapter 8: ‘The Workers: Impact and Response’. The authors’ confidence regarding the workers’ response is contingent upon more rational and humane methods of industrialization, assistance of labour organizations, and material gains accruing to the developing industrial proletariat.
See Walter Galenson, ‘Economic Development and the Sectoral Expansion of Employment’, International Labour Review, June 1963.
I. M. D. Little, ‘The Strategy of Indian Development’, National Institute Economic Review, 1960
K. Mukerji, ‘Employment and Substitution of Capital for Labour’, The Indian Economic Journal, April 1956
George Rosen, Industrial Change in India, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1958 (esp. p. 118), all of whom raise the problems posed by ‘expensive’ labour. The following report is interesting: Government of India National Employment Service, Directorate of Employment and Training, Delhi Administration, Manpower Shortages in Delhi (1961), March 1962. See also my paper, ‘Wage Policy in Economic Development’, The Economic Weekly, February 1964, esp. pp. 291–295.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1966 International Institute for Labour Studies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kannappan, S. (1966). The Many Facets of Government Influence on Industrial Relations in India. In: Ross, A.M. (eds) Industrial Relations and Economic Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00306-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00306-8_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-00308-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-00306-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)