THE Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Bill, 2016, if enacted, will facilitate dispute settlement without resorting to formal litigation for adjudication by the courts. This includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, neutral evaluation and dispute resolution through panchayat.

A panel of ‘neutrals’ will be notified by the government, which includes a conciliator, evaluator and mediator or any other impartial person. A panchayat will be a conciliatory body constituted by any law for the time being in force. The court may refer a matter pending before it to ADR with the consent of the parties. If the parties agree before initiating formal proceedings, they may make an application to the court or an ADR centre (notified by the federal government), or a panchayat for resolution of their dispute.

A ‘neutral’ will have to dispose of the matter within a maximum of 45 days. If the matter is referred to an arbitrator, the process must be completed within a maximum of 90 days.

If a settlement is reached, it will have to be submitted by the ‘neutral’ or arbitrator to the court, which will announce a verdict and pass decree in terms of the settlement. A list of 23 types of matters and (civil and commercial) disputes that can be referred for ADR are mentioned in the schedule to the bill.

The poor cannot afford costly litigation.

The objectives behind the formation of an ADR system are to settle disputes effectively, overcome delays, provide inexpensive justice and reduce the burden on courts. As litigation is a lengthy and expensive process, there is a worldwide trend to adopt ADR.

Since the ADR system is apparently being introduced with good intentions, one hopes the mechanism meets with success. However, besides civil and commercial matters, issues and disputes related to labour must also be included in the ADR bill. At present, labour matters are specifically adjudicated by labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Commission. Generally, contests take place between an employer, with all the resources at his disposal, and his employee, who has been dismissed from his job.

The employer can sustain litigation for an indefinite period, but the employee cannot afford to hold his ground against high expenses and delayed decisions by the courts.

There is no one to guide the latter regarding an unfair dismissal. Approaching the government’s labour department mediators is of no use, as they lack the judicial powers to enforce his reinstatement in the event that an injustice has occurred.

In 1972, the then PPP government had set up ‘junior labour courts’ with the purpose of providing expeditious justice to workers. It was mandatory for JLCs to decide the cases within seven days of filing; in practice it would take months — even over a year — to decide the matter. Consequently, they could not continue and labour litigation went back to the labour courts in existence prior to the setting up of JLCs; they had become courts of appeal for a short duration.

It is believed that the availability of an ADR system for aggrieved workers of industrial and commercial establishments, and for the labour unions for the resolving of their disputes, may achieve the desired end in view of its success in Indian Punjab. The concept of ADR through lok adalats (people’s courts) was made successful with the active support and cooperation of all the social partners in these disputes, such as the employers, workers, trade unions, advocates, judicial officers and officials of the labour department.

A huge pendency of labour disputes in Indian Punjab’s various courts was reduced to a large extent by a proactive approach that ensures a constant dialogue between the various social partners through formal and informal methods, that makes the parties reach a fair and amicable settlement and then obtain the seal of the court by organising lok adalats as provided in the statutory mechanism.

The process helped achieve spectacular results, leading to speedy and inexpensive justice for the poor litigants. Only those cases where parties to the dispute reach a voluntary settlement are taken to lok adalats, and on the refusal of one party to do so the cases are decided as per the normal traditional procedure.

Once a settlement is arrived at between the parties in a lok adalat, there is finality to the adjudication and no further agitation takes place in the higher courts. Hence, the desired objective of ensuring speedy adjudication is adequately achieved.

Now that the federal government has taken the initiative of introducing ADR in civil and commercial matters, there is a strong justification to include labour issues and disputes in such a system.

The writer is an industrial relations professional.

Published in Dawn January 24th, 2017