Third Year

Time : Three hours

Maximum : 75 marks

1. Section A consists of EIGHT short answer questions. The candidate has to answer FOUR questions. The answer shall not exceed 1 page each.
2. Section B consists of FOUR questions. Each question consists of either or choices and the candidate has to answer either (a) or (b) from each question. The answer shall not exceed 5 pages each.
3. Section C consists of Case which is compulsory and carries 15 marks.

SECTION A - (4 x 3 = 12 marks)

1. Write briefly on any FOUR of the following: (a) Industrial relations.
(b) Managerial trade unions
(c) Employer's Associations.
(d) Arbitration.
(e) Adjudication
(f) Trade union finances.
(g) Strikes.
(h) Lock-outs.

SECTION B - (4 x 12 = 48 marks)

2. (a) Explain the impact of public policies on Union Management Relations.

Or

(b) What are the major events and international issues influencing Union-management relations?

3. (a) What is trade union? Explain the problems and prospects of trade unions in India.

Or

(b) "Trade Unions in India have become ineffective after globalization" . Discuss,

4. (a) What is workers' participation in management? Explain the different forms of worker's participation in management in India.

Or

(b) What is industrial conflict? Explain the preventive and settlement measures of industrial conflicts.

5. (a) What are the emerging trends in Union-Management relations?

Or

(b) Explain the cross cultural aspects of Union -management relations.

SECTION C - (15 marks)

CASE

6. CASE : ORGANISATIONAL DISCIPLINE - A GOAL OR A MEANS?

A nationalized road transport corporation introduced an incentive scheme for the bus crew (staff) so as to provide better transport facilities to the maximum number of passengers as there was no other transport agency operating on the same route. Moreover, this would increase the revenue of the corporation. In accordance with this scheme, the corporate fixed a certain amount of the level of revenue to each route as base revenue. If the revenue earned by a particular trip was equal to the base revenue, the conductor and driver of that bus would be eligible to receive the incentive amount of one per cent of the base revenue. If the revenue exceeded the base amount the conductor and driver could get higher per cent on incremental revenue as incentive bonus.

In a bid to take advantage of this incentive scheme, the bus conductors of almost all the routes started to overload the buses exceeding double the seating capacity (i.e., 49 seating capacity plus 49 standing passengers). This scheme had been functioning successfully, benefiting the passengers, the bus crew and particularly the corporation as the cost of operation of the bus did not increase in proportion to the increase in revenue.

Mr. 'A' had been working as a conductor in 'Z' depot of the road transport corporation. He was on duty on 19th September'83 on a route (R to K passenger bus). He had overloaded the bus almost to a double of the seating capacity. Mr. X - a passenger of that bus did not purchase a ticket despite repeated enquiries of the conductor, because the heavy overloaded condition of the bus and his illness. The conductor was unable to count the passengers because of the overload. In this state, the ticket checking officers stopped the bus, verified the tickets of all the passengers and found that Mr. X had not purchased a ticket. They blamed the conductor for not issuing the ticket and the passenger for not buying the ticket. Then Mr. X in a written appeal to the checking staff stated that he had not purchased the ticket despite repeated enquiries by the conductor because he was ill and the bus was heavily overloaded. He requested , therefore, not to take any action against the conductor. The ticket checking staff collected the ticket fare and penalty from Mr. X and suspended the conductor ignoring the written request made by Mr. X. Moreover, the repeated requests made by the co-passengers of that bus was not paid any heed to.

The suspension of the conductor created an uproar among all the bus crew of the depot (Z). The operating staff (conductors and drivers) held a meeting on 19th September itself and resolved to limit the intake of passengers to the seating capacity. This decision was implemented with immediate effect. Consequently, most of the commuters were unable to leave for their destination. Passengers of almost all the routes experienced many difficulties while traveling. Average revenue per day of 'Z' bus depot declined to Rs. 75,000 from Rs. 1,00,000 between 20th and 27th September. The suspension of Mr. A at 'Z' bus depot served as the potential "fuel" for the staff, working in other depots to launch a work-to-rule agitation. Viewing the situation, the officials of the corporation re-examined the whole case and withdrew the suspension order served on Mr. A on 27th September 1983.

Questions:

(a) Was the conductor guilty of negligence of duty?
(b) Should the corporation officials ignore the pleas and evidences of the passengers traveling in that bus while imposing a penalty?
(c) Should a genuine mistake call for the drastic punishment of suspension?
(d) Should the disciplinary rules, be applied for the sake f mere discipline or should they contribute to the goals and objectives of a corporation?

[204/DM-I/04]

Information presented on this page, including but not limited to test papers, model papers, question papers or other content is indicative and is provided as-is where-is basis and for general information only. Information on this page may not be complete / comprehensive and should not be considered as the official version of the University. Visitors of this page (including current or prospective Students) are advised to contact the University directly for the latest and detailed Test Papers, Transcripts or any other information in this regard. This website would not be in any case be liable for the information provided. Please see our Disclaimer and Terms of Service for further information.