Paper II — Q8
(a) "There are two approaches of managing industrial disputes in an organization—preventive and curative." Examine this…
(a) "There are two approaches of managing industrial disputes in an organization—preventive and curative." Examine this statement. Also evaluate their individual effectiveness. (20 marks) (b) "An experiment in profit-sharing scheme on a wide scale would be definitely undertaking a voyage on uncharted seas." Discuss this statement. (20 marks) (c) Explain the organs of International Labour Organization. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "संगठन में औद्योगिक विवादों के प्रबंधन के दो दृष्टिकोण हैं—रोधात्मक एवं उपचारात्मक।" इस कथन का परीक्षण कीजिए। साथ ही, इनकी व्यक्तिगत प्रभावशीलता का भी मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "लाभ सहभागिता योजना को बड़े पैमाने पर लागू करना ठीक उसी प्रकार होगा जिस प्रकार कि अज्ञात समुद्र में नाव चलाना।" इस कथन की विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय श्रम संगठन के अंगों को समझाइए। (10 अंक)
Directive word: Examine
This question asks you to examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'examine' in part (a) requires critical investigation of both preventive and curative approaches with balanced evaluation; part (b) demands 'discuss'—exploring multiple perspectives on profit-sharing's experimental nature; part (c) requires straightforward 'explain' on ILO organs. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its analytical depth and 20 marks, 35% to part (b) for its discursive complexity, and 25% to part (c) for descriptive coverage. Structure: integrated introduction linking dispute resolution to labour welfare → body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how effective dispute management and innovative profit-sharing contribute to industrial harmony.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Distinguish preventive approaches (collective bargaining, works committees, grievance procedures, joint management councils) from curative approaches (conciliation, arbitration, adjudication under ID Act 1947) with critical evaluation of their relative effectiveness in Indian context
- Part (a): Evaluate effectiveness citing limitations—preventive approaches often weak in MSMEs and informal sector; curative approaches suffer from delays, backlog of cases, and low implementation of awards
- Part (b): Analyze 'uncharted seas' metaphor—discuss uncertainties in profit-sharing including measurement problems, cyclical profit fluctuations, worker expectations management, and potential conflict with fixed wage demands
- Part (b): Present counter-arguments citing successful experiments—Scanlon Plan, Rucker Plan, ESOPs in Indian companies (Infosys, TCS), and recommendations of 2nd NCL on profit-sharing
- Part (c): Explain three ILO organs with functions—International Labour Conference (supreme body), Governing Body (executive), International Labour Office (secretariat); mention tripartite representation and recent ILO conventions ratified by India
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates precise command: for (a) 'examine' produces critical investigation with evaluative judgment, not mere description; for (b) 'discuss' presents balanced multi-perspective analysis including limitations and possibilities; for (c) 'explain' delivers systematic functional exposition of ILO organs without unnecessary critique | Addresses directives adequately but with some conflation—treats 'examine' as description, 'discuss' as one-sided argument, or 'explain' with excessive critical commentary | Misinterprets directives—describes instead of examining, argues instead of discussing, or critiques instead of explaining; treats all three parts with identical approach regardless of directive |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Comprehensive coverage: (a) details specific mechanisms under ID Act (Section 3, 4, 9C, 10, 11) with critical assessment; (b) engages with theoretical debates (Weitzman, Kruse-Blasi research) and Indian legal framework; (c) accurately identifies ILO organs with current composition and recent conventions | Covers main points but with gaps—mentions dispute resolution methods without statutory backing, discusses profit-sharing superficially without theoretical grounding, or describes ILO organs with outdated information | Significant content errors—confuses conciliation with arbitration, misrepresents profit-sharing as mandatory under law, or conflates ILO with WTO/World Bank structures |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with visible transitions; each part has internal coherence—(a) binary comparison with evaluative matrix, (b) thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression, (c) systematic organ-wise exposition; effective linking conclusion tying dispute resolution to participatory management | Recognizable structure but uneven—strong on (a) and (c) but rambling on (b), or disproportionate space allocation; some transitions present but mechanical | Poorly organized—no clear part demarcation, random information dump, or severe imbalance (e.g., 70% on (a), neglecting (c)); absence of paragraph coherence |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich evidentiary base: (a) cites landmark cases (Bharat Forge v. Union of India on conciliation, Workmen v. Firestone Tyre on adjudication) and NCR data on dispute pendency; (b) references specific Indian profit-sharing schemes (TISCO, HLL models) and global evidence; (c) mentions recent ILO conventions C190 on violence and harassment | Some examples present but generic—mentions 'many companies' without naming, cites ID Act sections without cases, or provides ILO founding date without contemporary relevance | Virtually example-free or inappropriate—uses HR anecdotes instead of legal precedents, confuses profit-sharing with bonus provisions under Payment of Bonus Act, or provides no ILO-specific evidence |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: argues for integrated preventive-curative architecture with profit-sharing as preventive bridge; offers policy recommendation (e.g., strengthening bipartite committees, pilot profit-sharing in PSUs); demonstrates awareness of Code on Industrial Relations 2020 implications | Summarizes each part separately without integration; offers generic conclusion on 'harmonious industrial relations' without specific actionable insight | Absent or purely descriptive conclusion; no analytical progression from body; or introduces entirely new unconnected ideas at end |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Commerce & Accountancy 2024 Paper II
- Q5 Answer each of the following questions in about 150 words: (a) Discuss the problems faced…
- Q6 (a) "Tests are useful in predicting the failure rather than success of the candidate on t…
- Q7 (a) What do you mean by a model employer? Critically examine the role of public enterpris…
- Q8 (a) "There are two approaches of managing industrial disputes in an organization—preventi…