{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Analysis of the case and the Issues drawn from the case

Analysis of the case and the Issues drawn from the case -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Analysis of the case and the Issues drawn from the case. 1. The Company was declared a PUS as per the section 2(n)(ii) and Section 22 of the ID Act. Thus the workmen had to declare a notice of 6 weeks for the strike. Since this notice was not provided, the strike was illegal and hence the subsequent lock out was not illegal. 2. The suspension of 15 workers in 2004 is legal because an enquiry was initiated against them and management has a right to put a worker under suspension provided it gives this in writing within a week of such order. 3. Introduction of TPA seems to have led to the beginning of the dispute. The Japanese way of management also appears to be odds with the highly political work environment in
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: India. 4. Dismissal seems to have followed the principles of natural justice and fair trial. 5. CITU was a third party to the case. The entry of CITU in the dispute led to further deterioration of TKMEU and TKM management. We believe the entry of CITU in the case was uncalled for, and did so not for benefit of labor, but fulfill their own interest. 6. The labor strike was not in the larger interests of the society. It led to Toyota not investing any further in the state. Hence, the strike was unjustified. 7. The labor laws in India are archaic thus rendering the flexible and lean working styles like Just In Time redundant....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online