case studies ir

5/12/2018 Case Studies IR - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-studies-ir 1/22

CASE STUDY - II

A STUDY OF PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT

One of the workers, Sunil Pawar is a worker in the Production Department and works as

a driller. He is in the company for past five years and all the while he has been working

as a driller only. He record of service has been generally good, except for one warning for remaining absent for two days without permission. In the early years of service, he used

to be rude to his superiors and quarrelsome with his co-workers. But there is nothing

about this on the record, because no serious view was taken about this by the superiors. Inthe past eight months, since the new management took over the control of Neptune

Engineering Company, there is a change in the policy. The new management has taken a

stricter approach in enforcing discipline.

One day, at 8.00 p.m., at the time of starting of the shift Sunil went to his supervisor

saying that some guests has arrived unexpectedly at his house in the morning and hewanted leave for that day. The supervisor told him that since few more workers were

already absent in the Department he could not grant him, leave. Instead he asked Sunil to

work on the press machine. On that day because the regular press operator had not come

and there was a large backlog which must be cleared today. Sunil declined to obey theinstruction. He said, "I will work on my machine only and not on any other machine",

and he went to his usual drilling machine. After some time he left a leave application on

the supervisor table. He was not seen on the shop floor throughout the day.

The supervisor had reported the case to his manager and the manager wants your opinion

as the Senior Consultant to the company.

Questions

1. Comment on the events that have taken place.2. Suggest the course of action.

CASESTUDY - III

SONA AND RUPA COMPANY

The Sona and Rupa Company manufactured wooden toys of various kinds; wooden

animals, pull toys, and the like. One part of the manufacturing process involved spraying

paint on the partially assembled toys. This operation was staffed entirely by women. The

toys were cut, sanded and partially assembled in the wood room. Then they were dippedinto shellac, following which they were painted. The toys were predominantly two

coloured; a few were made in more than two colours. Each colour required an additional

trip through the paint room.

For a number of years, production of these toys had been entirely and work. However, to

meet the tremendously increase in demand, the painting operation had recently been re-engineered so that the eight operators (all women) who did the painting sat in a line by an



endless chain of hooks. Those hooks were in continuous motion, past the line of operators

and into a long horizontal oven. Each woman sat at her own painting booth so designed

as to carry away fumes and to backstop excess paint. The operator would take a toy fromthe tray beside her, position it in a jig inside the painting cubicle, spray on the colour

according to a pattern, then release the toy and hand it to the hook passing by. The rate at

which the hooks moved has been calculated by the engineers so that each hook before it passed beyond her reach.

The operators working in the pain room were on a group bonus plan. Since the operationwas new to them, they were, receiving a learning bonus, which decreased by regular

amounts each month. The learning bonus was scheduled to vanish in six months, by

which time it was expected that they would be on their own, that is, able to meet the

standard and to earn a group bonus when they exceeded it.By the second month of the training period. Trouble had developed. The employees

learned more slowly than had been anticipated, and it began to look as though their

production would stabilize far below what was planned for. Many of the hooks were

going by empty. The women complained that they were going by too fast, and that thetime study man had set the rates wrong. A few women quit and had to be replaced with

new operators, which further aggravated the learning problem. The team spirit that themanagement had expected to develop automatically through the group bonus was not in

evidence except as an expression of what the engineers called “resistance". One woman

whom the group regarded as its -leader (and the management regarded as the ring-leader)

was outspoken by voicing the various complaints of the group before the foreman; the jobwas messy one, the hooks moved too fast, the incentive pay was not being correctly

calculated, and it was too hot working so close to the drying oven.

A consultant who was brought into this picture worked entirely with and through the

foreman. After many conversations with him, the foreman felt that the first step should beto get the employees together for a general discussion of the working conditions. He took this step with some hesitation, but he took on his own volition.

The first meeting, held immediately after the shift was over at four o'clock in the

afternoon was attended by all the eight operators. They voiced the same complaintsagain: the hook sent by too fast, the job was too dirty, the room was hot and poorly

ventilated. For some reason, it was this last item that they complained of most. The

foreman promised to discuss the problem of ventilation and temperature with the

engineers, and he scheduled a second meeting to report back to the employees. In thenext few days the foreman had several talks with the engineers. They and the

superintendent felt that this was really a trumped-up complaint, and that expense of any

effective corrective measure would be prohibitively high.

The foreman came to the second meeting with some apprehensions. The operators,

however, did not seem to be much put out, perhaps because they had a proposal of their own to make. They felt that if several large fans were set up so as to circulate the air

around their feet, they would be much more comfortable. After some discussion, the

foreman agreed that the idea might be tried out. The foreman and the consultant



discussed the question of the fans with the superintendent, and three large propeller-type

fans were purchased.

The fans were brought in. The women were jubilant. For several days the fans were

moved about in various positions until they were placed to the satisfaction of the group.

The operators seemed completely satisfied with the results, and the relations betweenthem and the foreman improved visibly.

The foreman, after this encouraging episode; decided that further meetings might also be profitable. He asked the operators if they would like to meet and discuss other aspect of

the work situation. They were eager to do this. The meeting was held, and the discussion

quickly centered on the speed of the hooks.

The operators maintained that the time study man had them at an unreasonably fast speed

and that they would never be able to reach the goal of filling enough of them to make a

bonus. The turning point of the discussion came when the group's leader frankly

explained that the point wasn't that they couldn't work fast enough to keep up with thehooks, but they couldn't work at that pace all the day long.

The foreman explored the point. The employees were unanimous in their opinion that

they could keep up with the belt for short periods if they wanted to. But they didn't want

because if they showed they could do this for short periods they would be expected to do

it all day long. The meeting ended with an unprecedented request: "Let us adjust thespeed of the belt faster or slower depending on how we feel". The foreman agreed to

discuss this with the superintendent and the engineers.

The reaction of the engineers to the suggestion was negative. However, after several

meetings it was granted that there was some latitude within which variations in the speedof the hooks would not affect the finished product. After considerable argument with theengineers, it was agreed to tryout the operators' idea. With misgiving~, the foreman had a

control with a dial marked 'low, medium, fast' installed at the booth of the group leader;

she could now adjust the speed of the belt anywhere between the lower and upper limitsthat the engineers had set.

The operators were delighted and spent many lunch hours deciding how the speed of the

belt should be varied from hour to hour throughout the day. Within a week the patternhad settle down to one which the first half-hour of the shift was run on what the operators

called a 'medium' speed (a dial setting slightly above the point marked 'medium'). The

next two-and-a-half hours were run at 'high' speed the half-hour before lunch and half hour after lunch were run at 'low' speed. The rest of the afternoon was run at 'high speed'

with the exception of the last 45 minutes of the shift, which was run at 'medium'.

In view of the operators' reports of satisfaction and ease in work, it is interesting to note

that the constant speed at which ,the engineers has originally set the belt was slightly

below medium on the dial of the contro that had been given to the women. The average

speed at which they were running the belt was on the high side of the dial. Few, if any



empty hooks entered the oven, and inspection showed no increase of rejects from the

paint room.

Production increased, and within 2 weeks (some 2 months before the scheduled ending of

the learning bonus) the operators were operating at 30 to 50 per cent above the level that

had been expected under the original arrangement. Naturally their earnings werecorrespondingly higher than anticipated. They were collecting their base pay, a

considerable piece-rate bonus, and the learning bonus which, it will be remembered, had

been set to decrease with time and not as a function of current productivity. The operatorswere earning more than many skilled workers in other parts of the plant.

Questions

1. From the angle of job Enrichment, which core job dimension or job characteristic wasmost influenced by new system of group regulated speed? Evaluate the reported success

of the case against the principles of Job Enrichment.

2. Comment on the method of payment to the operators. How good do you think such a

system is?3. Would you consider the initial discontent of the operators as a ~grievance/?Why or

why not?4. How would you characterize the involvement of the operators after the introduction of

group-regulated speed?

5. Review your understanding of the characteristics of effective workers; participation

against the backdrop of the case.

CASE STUDY-IVOLD ORDER CHANGETH?

Modern Industries Limited (MIL) in Bangalore is an automobile ancillary industry. The

company started manufacturing automotive components over two decades ago in a smallway and has grown steadily over the years, employing over 4,000 persons at present with

the turnover exceeding Rs.100 crores. Its products are selling well and earning a sizeable

amount of profits.

The company is controlled and managed by an industrialist family. known for their

shrewdness and business acumen. They are among the first generation industrialists who

started their industrial ventures in a modest way, during the early phase of industrialisation in the country and along with the growth of automotive industry, MIL

also grew up.

The present Chairman, Mr. Suresh Shah had been with the company right from it's

inception; He started his career as an engineer trainee, rose to the position of the

Managing Director and in 1983 became the company's Chairman. As a result, he isacquainted with every minute detail and also with every employee who has been in the



company for long. He continues to keep in close touch with them and is easily accessible

to all of them, overruling hierarchy. A high premium is placed on their loyalty and their

long services are valued. The Chairman of the company firmly believes that each one of them has contributed significantly towards the growth of the company. In the light of the

fact that the company maintained a "strong utilitarian culture" all along, the contribution

of each and every employee had to be substantial and they were rewarded accordingly. Atthe same time, there were many instances, where the services were terminated due to

inadequate performance.

Mr. Janardhan Thakur joined MIL as a training instructor, over two decades ago. Prior to

that, he served as an instructor at an Industrial Training Institute. He had himself obtained

the craft instructors' certificate from ITI. He was 35 years old and his main task was to

recruit young persons as trainees, either under the Apprentices Act or as companytrainees and then train them as craftsmen. Most of these trainees were absorbed to meet

the growing needs of the company, and Mr. Shah used to personally involve himself in

the process of recruitment and training of craftsmen. Mr. Thakur was directly reporting to

Mr. Shah, despite the vast gap in the hierarchy. Mr. Thakur was promoted to the rank of training Superintendent in 1980, though there was not much change in his job content.

The growing phase of the company was practically over by that time, and the Apprenticetraining became a mere statutory activity. The company did not have the vacancies to

absorb the trained apprentices, and therefore, Me. Shah's involvement in apprenticeship

training also receded. The training activity became a subsidiary activity and was not

given much importance.The winds of change were blowing through MIL also. Mr. Anil Shah, the son of the

founder industrialist took over as the Managing Director of MIL in 1983, whereas Mr.

Ramesh Shah continued to be the Chairman of the company.

The young MD was full of new ideas. He wanted to revitalise the company from allaspects and diversify into high technology areas. He wanted to modernise the present plant and change the management style from the traditional direct control approach to a

systems controlled approach. A modern computer was bought and computerisation was

introduced.

The company had to face many problems while introducing these changes. One of the

major hurdles was the problem of a number of senior employees, who were not

adequately qualified or developed, but had grown into senior positions. Earlier thetouchstone was loyalty and hard work rather than competence. In the light of this

situation, new competent professionals had to be hired to introduce the changes.

MIL was well-known for its aggressive personnel policies. Anyone who joined the

company had to struggle hard for his survival as the company was ruthless in sacking

those who were not meeting the requirements. It was particularly so in case of the newappointees, which in turn necessitated them to be ruthless in their work The older

employees felt threatened and resented the changes and the consequent pressures.

Therefore, they collectively approached the Chairman and requested him to intervene and

safeguard their interests. The Chairman, who was not himself happy with all the changes,



issued instructions to the MD, to the effect that no old employee be dislocated. The new

MD had no other option but to comply with the order.

The MD was interested in trying out the HRD approaches to train all the employees,

particularly employees who were turning out to be deadwoods. He hired Mr. Kumar in

1984 as a Training Manager. Mr. Kumar was basically an engineer but had considerableexperience with a multinational company in the field of HRD, particularly in Training

and Management Development. He reorganised the training set up by inducting two

Assistant Managers. Mr. Thakur was next to the Assistant Managers in the hierarchy 'andreported to Mr. Kumar directly and continued to manage the affairs related to

apprenticeship training.

Until Mr. Kumar came along, Mr. Thakur had enjoyed the position of the head of the

training division, though there was no other training activity apart from apprenticeshiptraining. He was operating independently and was reporting directly to the MD. He

continued to do so even after the organisation had grown in proportion. Mr. Thakur felt

demoted in the new set up. Fie lost his position and individuality in the organisation, and

his pride was seriously hurt. He was not prepared to accept Mr.Kumar as his boss .and hestarted behaving in an irrational manner. He resented the vast gap created between him

and the top man in the new structure.

Mr. Kumar tolerated him with the hope that Mr. Thakur would reconcile himself to the

changes, in time. Unfortunately, he continued to behave in the same way and there was

no improvement even after one year. When Mr. Kumar tried to counsel him, Mr. Thakur demanded to be promoted to the level of Assistant Manager, as he happened to be the

senior most person in the department.

Kumar promised to look into his demand. On a careful analysis of the personal docket of

Mr. Thakur and all the previous documents, he found out that Mr. Thakur was over promoted and also over paid for the job that he was doing. Leave alone being entitled for further promotion, Mr. Thakur was not even fit for his present position.

The company did not have a formal performance appraisal system. It's products wereselling well, the profitability was good and accordingly all the employees were rewarded

well. Promotions and extra increments were given arbitrarily based on the personal likes

and dislikes of the top man, rather than on any objective analysis of performance or

potential of an individual. No formal manpower planning or organisational planningexisted. No efforts were made to forecast implications of such a system in future. On the

whole, the company did not have any formal projection for the future.

The company followed the practice of giving long service .certificates and awards to all

those who had completed 20 years of service in the company. Mr. Thakur had got his

certificate only recently. There were several employees belonging to Mr. Thakur'scategory. All of them united and met both formally and informally to discuss their

strategies and demands. They used to put up their grievances to the management

collectively. They had established a very strong rapport with the Chairman, Mr. Shah.

Mr. Kumar presented all the facts to Mr. Thakur to convince him that his promotion was



not possible. As the latter was not used to the kind of logic presented by Mr. Kumar, he

dismissed all his arguments as sophisticated jargon, irrelevant to the context of his

company. He was particularly bitter about the fact that his promotion was turned downwhereas there were several people with similar background who have got their

promotions. Therefore, there was further deterioration in his behaviour. He started

ignoring the directions of Mr. Kumar and worked as per his own whims and fancies, behaving arrogantly. He even went to the extent of challenging Mr. Kumar that he could

neither promote him nor demote him in the prevailing situation. So long as he was

protected by the Chairman of the company, there was nothing for him to worry about andhis job was practically secure.

Mr. Kumar optimistically hoped that Mr. Thakur could overcome his frustration and

anger over a period of time. Unfortunately, even after another six months there was no

sign of any progress. In fact, the situation deteriorated further with Mr. Thakur becomingmore confident in his belief that' Mr. Kumar was powerless to deal with him. He turned

out to be a drag in the department, purposely creating problems for Mr. Kumar.

In MIL the annual increments and general raises were given as a policy to everyemployee which is termed as. the "Janata raise" Mr. Thakur was quite sure that he would

get his Janata raise and reconciled himself to that. Mr. Kumar tried to stop this raise butcould not do so. There were several bullies belonging to Mr. Thakur's category in the

organisation and one of the tasks of the Training Manager was to handle such people.

Though he had organised a few training workshops in the behavioural areas, it had not

brought about the required attitudinal changes. Right under his nose he had a personwhose behaviour he was not able to amend. Mr. Kumar realised that the desired changes

were not possible, so long as the "flat security" was there.

Due to a change in the governmental policy, there were several new competitors to MIL

and the MD felt there was a strong need and urgency to bring in changes in theorganisation, to make it more dynamic and competitive. It was no longer possible to carryon the organisational dead woods. Mr. Kumar was under great pressure to look into all

such cases in the organisation, on a priority basis. When he explained his difficulties, the

MD suggested that he should approach the Chairman to apprise him of the facts.

Mr. Kumar met the Chairman and apprised him of the situation particularly citing the

example of Mr. Thakur. The Chairman, in turn attributed the blame to Mr. Kumar

himself, questioning him as to why a faithful and normal employee had turned into a problematic case under Mr. Kumar within one year.

Mr. Kumar is now left with no alternative but to ignore Mr. Thakur and continue in hisefforts to change the other difficult employees. However, he will not have the moral right

to intervene in such cases.

Alternatively he could simply promote Me. Thakur and buy peace irrespective of whether

he deserves it or not.

Questions



1. Is it right on the part of the Chairman to protect the senior employees, thereby causing

problem to the new MD?

2. Is the Chairman not over-rewarding long service?3. Are the senior employees too sensitive and over reacting to the changes?

4. Did the MD adequately prepare the ground for introducing the changes? Was he too

hasty?5. Would it not have been wise for Mr. Kumar to promote Mr. Thakur without bothering

about the logic which is not applicable in MIL?

6. Is the assumption of the Training Manager that 'Over protection is the root cause of trouble' right?

CASE STUDY - V

PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR: RAM LAL

Ram Lal was recruited directly by the Kanpur Textile Mills as a temporary spinning

supervisor in July 1966. At the time of his appointment, he was given a salary of Rs. 300

which included basic pay and other allowances. He was then 27 years old, a bachelor

with no dependants. He had a smart and pleasant personality. He had passed hismatriculation examination from a local High School and had about one year's experience

as a spinning supervisor in a similar textile mill in the same city. In the present job, he

had to work under the Assistant Spinning Master and to supervise about 100 workers inthe mills. The mills operated three shifts a day changing once a week in anti-clockwise

direction. Ram Lal's performance in the beginning as a spinning supervisor as found to be

uniformly efficient. His attitude towards the mills, superiors and co-supervisors wasreported to be favourable. He was held in high esteem by his superiors, fellow-

supervisors and workers. Sometimes he used to initiate informal parties and get-togethers

in the canteen of the mills. On the recommendation of his superiors the managementconfirmed him in the job on 1st October, 1967.

In January, 1968 there was a vacancy in the spinning department because of the

resignation of another supervisor. Girdhari who was working in a neighbouring mill at asalary of Rs. 330, applied for this position. The Assistant Spinning Master who knew him

personally recommended to the Factory Manager that Girdhari was a highly skilled

supervisor and that he might be considered for the job. On his recommendation theFactory Manager hired him at a salary of Rs. 350. According to the Factory Manager,

Ram Lal was unhappy over the appointment of Girdhari. Consequently, he started to

interfere in the smooth functioning of Girdhari' s department.

It was noted in December 1968 that the output of Ram Lal's shift was markedly below the

standard of the mills. He was frequently found to be late in attending the mills.

Sometimes, he applied for leave while staying at home without any prior permission. Hisattitude was described by the management as 'pro-labour'.

Once Girdhari visited the Assistant Spinning Master (A.S.M.) and the followingconversation took place:



Girdhari : Good morning, Sir.

A.S.M. : Good morning, Mr. Girdhari. How are you?

Girdhari : Thank you Sir, I am quite well.

A.S.M. : Your output is excellent in the mills. I don't know what has happened to Ram

Lal. I remain constantly worried about the output from his department. Do you know whythat output is so much below the standard?

Girdhari: Why not, Sir! That is known to everyone in the mills. For example, Kalu,

Jagdish and Kirti who are supposed to be working under him, do not actually do anywork for the mills though they receive their full salary from the mills.

A.S.M.: How is that possible?

Girdhari : Sir,Ram Lal sends these men to their homes and their time cards are always

turned to indicate a full day's work. In another case, Manohar was constantly absent inRam Lal's department for a long period of time. Ram Lal punched his time card at

intervals so as to retain his employment in the mills. There is more to it than this, Sir. He

leaks out certain confidential information to the workers. He is very clever. He wants to

win their confidence and create a good impression of himself on them.

A.S.M.: What sort of confidential information has been leaked out?

Girdhari : He has told each of his men that Banwari, one of my men, is going to win a

cash reward of Rs. 100 as the most efficient worker of the mills this year. This is amischievous move. He claims that the management is showing favouritism, as Banwarireally stands nowhere.

A.S.M. : O.K., I shall take care of him.

The Assistant Spinning Master visited Ram Lal's department on the same day in the

afternoon but he could find nothing wrong in his department with the exception that Ram

Lal was chatting with a few workers. The Assistant Spinning Master informed theFactory Manager on the same day that Ram Lal was engaged in gossiping with a group of

workers at many times during a day. On the basis of several informal reports of the

Assistant Spinning Master, the management formed the opinion that Ram Lal did notcooperate with his superiors and co-supervisors in the mills. According to the

management, Ram Lal became an "unconvincing, lethargic and arrogant" man.

The Assistant Spinning Master informed the Factory Manager on 20th August, 1970 that

in spite of his repeated verbal warnings, Ram Lal did not care to improve his behaviour.

After one week Ram Lal received the following letter from the Factory Manager.



Dated: 27th August, 1970

Confidential

To,

Shri Ram Lal,Spinning Supervisor

1. You were given perfect doff-control setting as seen by the Assistant Spinning Master and the Factory Manager which has not been maintained.

2. Reasons for breakages should have been investigated as the same frames numbers 7, 8

and 9 were in perfect running condition in the earlier and the next shifts.

3. You have left 100 spindles idle for no explicable reason, as reported by the supervisor who has taken charge from you.

4. Evidently the work was not controlled by you.

5. You should be able to detect, if at all, there is any delinquence on the part of those who

are responsible for spoiling the work. The responsibility of the proper running of thedepartment is solely yours.

6. It has been found that you are not regular in your attendance and are in the habit of applying for leave while sitting at home without any prior intimation and/or permission.

7. It has been brought to my notice that you are allowing some of ,your men to enjoy

leave unauthorisedly.

8. It has been reported that you are in the habit of divulging secret and confidentialinformation of the management to various unauthorised persons.

In future, you are expected to maintain satisfactory performance and proper discipline inthe department.

S.P. WadhawaFactory Manager

Unfortunately, Ram Lal did not respond positively to the above warnings. On the other

hand, the management was fed up with his arrogant behavioral patterns but did not know

how to sack him.

Evidently, he became a problem-employee. His behaviour did not improve despite

repeated counselling by his superiors. The management finally decided to serve him with

a charge-sheet as follows:

October 16, 1970



Confidential

ToMr, Ram Lal,

Spinning Supervisor

Following are the charges against you and you are asked to submit your explanation

within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet failing which disciplinary action will be

taken against you.1. Production in your shift on 5th, 8th, 12th and 15th instant has been very low in spite of

repeated verbal and written warnings

2. In spite of repeated warnings you continue to be unpunctual in your attendance and

also continue to handle the operations of the department in a Casual and indifferent way,Detail as follows :

(a) On 10th instant the reeling department was handed over without belts for six reels and

thin bobbins accumulated near the conditioning tank.-

(b) On l1th instant, the spinning department was handed over in a very bad condition withoverlapping and many ring frames were not gaited properly.

(c) On 15th instant while you were handing over the charge of the spinning department, itwas also found that two ring frames were stopped without gaiting and seven ring frames

were not gaited properly and also there was heavy overlapping.

(d) You attended to your shift duties on 12 th, 15th and 16th instant very late thereby

causing dislocation in the arrangement of the shift.(e) In spite of repeated warnings and advice you failed to maintain proper discipline in

the department.

In view of the above it is clear that as a responsible employee of the mills you have

neither improved your punctuality nor work efficiency. Moreover, you have also failed tomaintain discipline in the department. You are therefore required to submit your explanation within the aforesaid time limit as to why disciplinary action should not be

taken against you which may even include termination of your services from the mills.

S.P. Wadhawa

Factory Manager

Ram Lal replied to the above charge-sheet as follows:

Dated: October 17. 1970

ToThe Factory Manager

Ref. : Your letter dated October 16. 1970.

Respected Sir,

On October 15, 1970 I agree that I could not hand over the charge of spinning department

in a proper manner because I could not manage the work of the department due to various



domestic reasons. I assure you Sir that I will hand over the charge of the department in a

proper manner in future. I also assure you that I shall maintain my production high in

future. However, I am surprised to know from your letter that I do not maintain disciplinein the department and leak-out confidential information to workers. I am sure you will

agree with me that whenever I do any good work, other supervisors feel jealous and

report to you stealthily against me. Please do not pay heed to these rumours. Since I amthe senior supervisor in the mills, I request you to kindly give me an opportunity to prove

my capability in the future. I also assure you, Sir, that I shall maintain discipline in the

department. Thanking you and assuring you of my sincere services always.

Yours faithfully,

(Ram Lal)

Spinning Supervisor

The management observed that in spite of his above assurance, he neither maintained the

production standard nor enforced discipline in the department. He could not also improve

his behavioural patterns in the mills.

Questions

1. What is the central problem in this case?

2. What corrective measures do you propose to solve this problem?

3. Prepare a systematic report for the management as a consultant psychologist analysing

the pros and cons in detail.

CASE STUDY - VI

LOSING A GOOD MAN

Sundar Steel Limited was a medium-sized steel company manufacturing special steels of various types and grades. It employed 5,000 workers and 450 executives.

Under the General Manager (Production), there were operation, maintenance, andservices groups, each headed by a chief. The Chief of Maintenance was Shukla and under

him Mukherjee was working as the Maintenance Engineer. The total strength of

Maintenance was 500 workers, 25 executives, and 50 supervisors.

Chatterjee was working in Maintenance as a worker for three years. He was efficient. He

had initiative and drive. He performed his duties in a near perfect manner. He was a man

of proven technical ability with utmost drive and dash. He was promoted as Supervisor.Chatterjee, now a Supervisor, was one day passing through the Maintenance Shop on his

routine inspection. He found a certain worker sitting idle. He pulled him up for this. The

worker retaliated by abusing him with filthy words. With a grim face and utter frustration, Chatterjee reported the matter to Mukherjee. The worker who insulted

Chatterjee was a "notorious character", and no supervisor dared to confront him.

Mukherjee took a serious view of the incident and served a strong warning letter to theworker.



Nothing very particular about Chatterjee or from him came to the knowledge of

Mukherjee. Things were moving smoothly. Chatterjee was getting along well with others.But after about three years, another serious incident took place. A worker came drunk to

duty, began playing cards, and using very filthy language. When Chatterjee strongly

objected to this, the worker got up and slapped Chatterjee. Later, the worker went to hisunion and reported that Chatterjee had assaulted him while he was performing his duties.

Chatterjee had no idea that the situation would take such a turn. He, therefore, never

bothered to report the matter to his boss or collect evidence in support of his case.

The union took the case to Shukla and prevailed over him to take stern action against

Chatterjee. Shukla instructed Mukherjee to demote Chatterjee to the rank of a worker.

Mukherjee expressed his apprehension that in such a case Chatterjee will be of no use tothe department, and the demotion would affect adversely the morale of all sincere and

efficient supervisors. But Chatterjee was demoted.

Chatterjee continued working in the organisation with all his efficiency, competence, andability for two months. Then he resigned stating that he had secured better employment

else where. Mukherjee was perturbed at this turn of events. While placing Chatterjee'sresignation letter before Shukla, he expressed deep concern at this development.

Shukla called Chief of Personnel for advice on this delicate issue. The Chief of Personnel

said, "I think the incident should help us to appreciate the essential qualification requiredfor a successful supervisor. An honest and hardworking man need not necessarily prove

to be an effective supervisor. Something more is required for this as he has to get things

done rather than do himself."

Mukherjee said," I have a high opinion of Chatterjee. He proved his technicalcompetence and was sincere at his work. Given some guidance on how to deal with thetype of persons he had to work with, the sad situation could have been avoided."

Shukla said, "I am really sorry to lose Chatterjee. He was very \honest and pain-staking

in his work. But I do not know how I could have helped him. I wonder how he alwaysmanaged to get into trouble with workers. We know they are illiterates and some of them

are tough. But a supervisor must have the ability and presence of mind to deal with such

men. I have numerous supervisors, but I never had to teach anybody how to supervise his

men."

Questions

1. What is the main problem in the case?2. Do you think the decision taken by Shukla is in keeping with the faith, trust and

creating developmental climate in the organisation, critically evaluate?

3. What would you have done, if you were in place of Shukla?4. Do you agree with what Chief of Personnel has said? What is he pointing towards

saying that something more is required to be an effective supervisor, explain?

5. Mukherjee is pointing towards "guidance" Is he indicating' towards enhancing

competencies of the employees to perform their job more effectively. Do you agree?



6. Do you think counselling/mentoring may help improving rough and I tough

employees?

7. Is the present situation likely to affect the work motivation? HRD systems have greatrelevance to employee motivation. As G.M. what developmental interventions would you

recommend to improve work motivation and dyadic relationship.

CASE STUDY VII

SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO

Bharat Steel Structures Limited was a large public sector undertaking having 40,000

employees. It’s Fabrication Shop fabricated structures and paired various equipments.The shop was headed by the Deputy Works manager (Mechanical), who reported to the

Works Manager (Mechanical), who in turn reported to the General Manager (Works).

Sharma joined the company in 1980 as a Fabricator Grade II, which was a skilled job. His job was to fabricate and repair different equipments under his supervisor's guidance.

Initially Sharma was sincere, well behaved, and dedicated. Soon he became one of the

best workers in the shop. After some time, however, Sharma started losing interest in his

job and gradually became indifferent.

Frequently he picked up quarrels with his fellow workers on trivial issues. Mahto,

Supervisor of Sharma's shift, reported against him to the I Deputy Works Manager.Mahto complained that most of the time Sharma was not available at his work place, and

even when he was available he was found gossiping with other workers. The Deputy

Works Manager orally warned Sharma and told him to improve his performance;otherwise suitable action would be taken against him.

On June 18, Sharma and Mahto were in the morning shift (6 a.m. to 2 p.m.). At 12.30 p.m. Mahto left the shop and went to the Administration Building, which was outside the plant premises to enquire about a file. Mahto informed the Deputy Works Manager

before leaving the shop. At 12.40 p.m. Mahto was assaulted and manhandled on the road

just outside the main gate. Mahto was taken to the hospital by some workers. Mahtolodged a complaint that Sharma had assaulted him.

Sharma was subsequently charge-sheeted by the Deputy Works Manager for misconductand was asked to reply within seven days. The charge-sheet said:

1. "On June 18 at 12.45 p.m. you assaulted Mahto on the road outside the main gate while

he was going out of the plant. During the previous week he had reported about your lack of interest in work and frequent absence from work place without permission. Instead of

improving your performance, you assaulted him, apparently because he had complained

against you."2. "You were absent from your duty without permission between 12.30 p.m. and 1.40

p.m. on June 18."



In his reply of June 29 (within seven days as required) Sharma alleged that the Deputy

Works Manager had certain malice against him as he had not obliged him by

manufacturing and supplying a cupboard for his household use. The manager hadconcocted the case to victimize him. Moreover, he claimed that he and Mahto were

present on their duty up to 1.45 p.m. Hence, the question of his assaulting Mahto did not

arise. He further stated that he was on good terms with Mahto. The Works Manager didnot find the reply to be satisfactory and constituted an enquiry committee consisting of

the Senior Manager (Training) and the Senior Personnel Officer. Sharma fully

participated in the enquiry and was assisted by a coworker.

The committee held Sharma guilty of the misconducts mentioned in the charge-sheet.

The Works Manager was thinking about the action to be taken against Sharma and how

to avoid such situations in future.

Questions

1. Identify the problem in the case.

2. How do you see the act of Sharma? Critically evaluate with reference to his reply tothe enquiry committee.

3. How would you tackle the problem to avoid recurrence of such incidents, if you werethe Works Manager?

4. Do you see any role of organizational climate as a factor? Comment.

CASE STUDY - VIII

NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

National Manufacturing Company is a public limited concern having its factory atYamunanagar with its registered office in Delhi. It employs 1,200 workmen, who areorganised into a union called the "National

Manufacturing Company Mazdoor Union". Ramjas, a fitter in the engineering

department, is the president of the union, and he commands considerable .respect amongthe workmen.

On 30th April 1983, about 20 employees of the company led by Ramjas met the works

manager and asked him that May I be declared a holiday. The works manager expressedhis inability to oblige the union. Then the situation took an ugly turn. There was

exchange of hot words. Ramjas accused the works manager of being anti-working class

and a callous despot.

The same evening, Ramjas addressed a gate meeting. He asked the workers to observe

May Day in a fitting manner. A resolution condemning the attitude of the works manager was also adopted at the meeting.

At the start of the shift at 8:00 a.m. the next day, i.e. May Day, Ramjas went to the

factory, collected a number of workmen, including several office-bearers of the .union,



and went from department to department urging the workmen to stop work. Within a

short time a large number of workmen left their" work place and streamed out. A flag

hoisting ceremony was held outside the factory gate. Ramjas exhorted the workers to jointhe May Day rally later in the evening. The factory did not work for the rest of the day.

The management issued a charge-sheet to Ramjas on 3rd May 1983 giving details of thecharges and stated that those acts amounted to gross misconduct, under Standing Orders

24(a), (c), (g), (k), (p). (For text of

the Standing Orders see Annexure 1). Ramjas was required to submit his explanation inthe following language:

You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct

within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from theservice of the company. (For charge-sheet see Annexure II)

It was stated in the charge-sheet that Shri P.C. Gupta, the legal advisor of the company,

would hold the enquiry on the charge-sheet at 11.00 a.m. on 10th May, 1983 in theConference Room of the factory.

Ramjas refused to accept the charge-sheet. Therefore, it was sent to him by registered post on the same day and a copy thereof was displayed on the notice-board of the

company. The registered cover was received back with the remarks "refused to accept".

Ramjas, however, appeared for the enquiry and asked in writing that he be permitted to

be defended by a lawyer or alternatively by Pritam Singh, the General Secretary of theunion, who was not an employee of the company. The request of Shri Ramjas was turned

down by the enquiry officer. Ramjas walked out from the enquiry room stating that he

could not expect justice from the legal adviser of the company who was biased in favour of the management and that he was not being given proper opportunity to defend himself.

The enquiry officer recorded the statements of the management witnesses and concludedthe enquiry proceedings. He found Ramjas guilty of all the charges levelled against him.He submitted his findings to the works manager. The works manager referred the same to

the secretary of the company at the head office for advice. The secretary wrote back that

Ramjas should be dismissed. Accordingly, the works manager issued a letter to Ramjasterminating his services with immediate effect stating that all the charges levelled against

him were found proved and that he was guilty of misconduct for which dismissal was the

proper punishment.

The punishment inflicted upon Ramjas was assailed by the union on the following

grounds:

1. The charge of insubordination and subversive of discipline in passing resolutioncondemning the works manager was not a misconduct and, as such, no enquiry could be

held against him.

2. The charge-sheet was invalid inasmuch as the management being biased against himhad already made up its mind to dismiss him and that holding of the enquiry was just a

legal formality.

3. No opportunity was given to him to defend ~imself.



4. The proceedings of the enquiry recorded in his absence were not binding on him and

no punishment could be awarded on the basis of the same.

5. The appointment of the legal adviser of the company as the enquiry officer was illegaland against the principles of natural justice.

6. The works manager, being himself involved in the incident, was interested in the

outcome of the enquiry and could not act as the punishing authority.7. The works manager in the circumstances could not and did not apply his mind

independently in deciding the quantum of punishment.

8. He was victimized for his trade union activities and for being the president of theunion.

ANNEXURE I

24. (a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience alone or in combination with another or

others of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.

(c) Striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any

statute or the standing orders.(g) Entering or leaving or attempting to enter or leave the factory except in accordance

with these standing orders.(k) Threatening or intimidating any officer or employee on the factory premises.

(p) Deliberately making false, vicious, or malicious statements, public or otherwise,

against any officer or employee of the company.

ANNEXURE II

To,

Shri Ramjas,Fitter, Engineering Department,Token No. 1760

Whereas on 30th April 1983 you along with other 20 of your colleagues went to theoffice of the works manager Shri Randhir Singh and on his declining your request to

declare 1st May 1983 as a general holiday, you entered into heated arguments and used

undesirable language against him,

and whereas on the evening of the same day, i.e., 30th April, 1983, you organised andspoke at a meeting outside the factory premises where a resolution condemning the works

manager was passed.

. Whereas on the morning of 1st May, 1983 you along with other workmen of the factorymoved from department to department and incited the workers to stop work. This resulted

in workmen walking out of the factory premises for the day. The above acts of omission

and commission on your part amount to misconduct under Section 24(a), (c), (g), (k), and(p) of the Standing Orders.

You are hereby required to submit your explanation to the above said acts of misconduct

within 24 hours of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed from the

service of the company.



Please take note that an enquiry under the provisions of the Standing Orders in the

matters of the above charge-sheet will be held by Shri P.C. Gupta, Legal Adviser of the

Company, at 11:00 a.m. on 10th May 1983 in the Conference Room of the factory.You are hereby required to present yourself for the enquiry on the aforesaid date, time,

and place.

In view of the gravity of the misconduct mentioned above, you are also hereby placed

under suspension with immediate effect.

Questions

1. Was Ramjas justified in raising the demand for May-Day holiday on the 30th April,

and getting the work stopped on 1st May?

2. Was management justified in taking disciplinary action against Ramjas. If so, was thechargesheet drafted and served on him properly?

3. Was the enquiry conducted in conformity with principles of Natural Justice? If not, on

what grounds it can be declared vitiated.

4. Is the punishment of dismissal in proportion to the offence committed? What is the possibility of its being set aside or reduced by the Labour Court, or the higher court.

CASE STUDY -IX

A DEFIANT WORKER

Mr. X aged 25, who had been working in a large scale textile unit in Madurai was

referred to the Social Worker by the Labour Relations Department for a socialinvestigation of the defiant behaviour exhibited by him in the work place. He had

absented from work many a time due to certain disturbing habits.

Mr. X had committed serious acts of misconduct, riotous and disorderly behaviour during

working hours on 10-1-1982 as (1) he came to the Mill in a drunken state and quarrelled

with his co-workers and(2) Abused the supervisor using foul language.

On a cursory perusal of the past records of the deviant worker, the social worker came to

know that Mr. X had absented himself continually for 176½ days during 1981. Inaddition, he had availed himself of 21 days' medical leave and 22 days' casual leave. As a

result of his indisciplined behaviour, the company had taken the following disciplinary

action against him:

(1) He was suspended three times for 30 days by the Labour Relations Department for

absenting himself from work for more than six consecutive days on two occasions andonce for committing a serious act of misconduct.

(2) He was suspended as many as 5 times for being absent from the workspot.

(3) Once he was fined half of his salary maximum for carelessly allowing the cotton to

wrap on the cylinder roll.



(4) He was given a final warning on 27-8-1982 regarding his habitual absence.

During the preliminary interview the Social Worker had with Mr. X, he came to knowthat Mr. X was married and had studied upto 6th standard. He had been drawing a salary

of Rs. 800 and had put in six years of service as a 'Worker' in the Blow Section. As to the

family background, Mr. X is the youngest son of his parents. He lost his father andmother when he was 7 years old. Since then his eldest brother had been looking after him.

In order to know more about the socio-cultural background of Mr. X, the factors which

had driven him to indulge in alcoholism and the causes for his indisciplined behaviour inthe work place, the Social Worker paid visits to his house many a time and conferred

with his family members. In the course of an interview he had with the eldest brother of

Mr. X, the Social Worker gathered information about Mr. X's life history right from the

schooling. This revealed that Mr. X, was never interested in schooling and frequentlyabsented from the class. He was associated with a gang of friends who used to take him

to films regularly 'when Mr. X was in the fifth standard.

During his youth, Mr. X seemed to take active interest in politics and ultimately fellunder the influence of gangsters, through whom he had developed certain vices such as

consuming alcohol, ganja and gambling.

Seeing the deteriorating moral and social life of Mr. X his brother procured a job for him

'in the local textile unit so that Mr. X could settle down and assume certain

responsibilities in life. As years rolled by, Mr. X got married but in course of time hestarted developing a feeling of hatred towards his wife in as much as he did not like her

physical appearance. His marital life lasted only for three months after which the nuptial

bondage had broken, once and for all. Dissatisfied with the kind of life he was leading,Mr. X began to consume alcohol regularly only to become an addict. He started playing

ducks and drakes with all his savings and the income derived from his land too. His brother began to reject him for he was beyond redemption and finally drove him out of the house.

Mr. X's supervisor, while interviewed by the Social Worker, stated that Mr. X'srelationship with him and co-workers had been unsatisfactory. He was not efficient in his

work. Often times, he quarrelled with the Supervisor and other workers when he came to

the workspot under the influence of alcohol. The Supervisor was of the view that though

Mr. X has been counselled and punished on many occasions, he has not repented for theacts of misconduct he had committed.

Understandably, the factors contributing to the deviant behaviour that Mr. X might be thelack of parental care during his childhood, his association with gangsters, marital

disagreement due to dissatisfaction in his sexual relations, failure on the part of the

management to discover the problem at an early stage and control the same, etc., and thismight lead us to assume that Mr. X had developed disturbing habits such as alcoholic

addiction and chronic absenteeism owing to very factors indicated above. When the

Social Worker pleaded with the Labour Officer to grant pardon to Mr. X for the repeated

deviant acts exhibited by him, the Officer explained that though Mr. X was given the



absolute final warning, the latter had absented himself for about 45 days even after

receiving the same and therefore, he asserted, that he had no other option but to dismiss

Mr. X from service.

Questions

1. Is it not the moral and ethical responsibility of the employer to be concerned about thequality of life of the deviant worker?

2. How could the misbehaviour of the worker be constructively corrected without

penalty?3. Suppose the deviant worker had been counselled by the Supervisor/ Manager rather

than progressively penalized, would he have been dismissed from service?

4. Is the procedure adopted by the organisation for disciplining the errant behaviour of

the worker justifiable?5. Could the termination of the defiant worker's services have been avoided?

6. What rehabilitative measures could be adopted for preventing and correcting the

deviant behaviour of workers whu had exhibited habit disturbances in the work place?

CASE STUDY -X

SARVODAYA STRUCTURALS LIMITED

Sarvodaya Structurals Limited was engaged in the fabrication of heavy structurals. The

company had six shops besides engineering, accounts, personnel, sales, and

administrative departments. It employed 7,000 men. The chief executive of the companywas the General Manager.

In one of the shops employing 1,000 men, 900 tons of structurals were fabricated everymonth. The day-to-day management of the shop was entrusted to the Manager, who was

assisted by the Senior Foreman. The three main sections of the shop were Preparation,

Marking, and Finishing.

In the Marking and Finishing Sections, the work was supervised by two foremen each.

The Preparation Section was under the direct supervision of the Senior Foreman, who, inaddition, planned and coordinated the work of all the three sections. The Preparation

Section was responsible for the collection and. classification of works orders, for reading

intricate machine and structural drawings, determination of priorities for execution of

orders, checking bills of materials, and processing raw materials for fabrication. Thissection had 200 men on the rolls.

In 1961 the shop started receiving heavy orders, and as the workload increasedconsiderably, the Senior Foreman was unable to cope with it. On the Manager's

recommendation, the General Manager sanctioned two new posts of foremen for the

Preparation Section. Two Progress Incharges attached to the Senior Foreman were thusrendered surplus and their principal work, namely, reporting progress of work in the



shop, was transferred to the Production Planning Department. This action of the General

Manager had the concurrence of the Manager. The In-charges themselves were not

transferred to the Production Planning Department, as this had its own departmental mento take care of this work. They continued on the rolls of the shop, awaiting orders for

transfer to vacancies of equivalent grade in other shops.

The minimum qualifications for the recently created posts of foremen, prescribed by a

Joint Committee, were a diploma in engineering and five years' experience in a structural

shop. The posts were advertised for in the organization but none of the applicants wasfound suitable for appointment. The In-charges concerned, who were non-matriculates,

did not apply, as they did not possess the prescribed qualifications. The posts were,

therefore, advertised in the press. Three outside candidates applied. Only one appeared

for the interview and he was not considered suitable for appointment.

The case of the two surplus In-charges did not come within the purview of the grievance

procedure in operation in the company, as it involved a change in the minimum

qualifications prescribed for the post of Foreman. As, however, they were powerfulmembers of the Union executive, the Secretary of the recognized trade union took up

their case for appointment as foremen with the General Manager. The Union Secretaryargued that they had been doing part of the foremen's job before the posts were created

and, in the absence of suitable candidates they should be preferred for promotion.

The General Manager maintained that the men concerned were not qualified for the posts

and did not posses the technical background required to perform the Foreman's duties.The written job-descriptions of the posts of Progress In-charge and Foreman prepared by

the Joint Committee indicated that the job content of the former was only about 25 per

cent of that of a foreman, and only, on the administrative side. They did not supervise thework of the Preparation Section in any way, where there were mistries in line for

promotion. The latter, though good in their own area, could not be promoted as they werenot technically qualified to hold the higher position.

After prolonged discussion, the General Manager conceded that in the circumstances, the

In-charges would be given an opportunity to prove their fitness for the job. It was alsoagreed that in the first place, test specifications for the posts of Foreman would be

worked out by a Joint Committee and given to the men concerned. If they wished, they

would also be given guidance for a period of three months, to learn the job. They would

then be subjected to a test by the Training Officer, and if .they passed the test, they would be promoted to foremen.

The Manager communicated this decision to the Senior Foreman in the presence of thetwo men. He readily agreed to give them the necessary guidance whenever they requested

it. However, they maintained that "the decision was not only to give them guidance when

asked for, but full-time training and guidance in order to enable them to pass the test". Onhearing this, the Senior Foreman remarked: "I have no one to spare primarily for the

purpose of training them to pass the test. "

Questions



1. What is the main problem in the case?

2. Identify and discuss the stage and action required to tackle the problem before it

became a grievance. Comment on the role of the management.3. Critically evaluate the grievance and the follow-up action. Evaluate the union-

management compromise and its possible consequences with your own point of view, in

detail.4. If you were the manager of the "shop", how would you handle the problem, after the

senior foreman's remark about sparing the "in-charges" for three months?