Conciliation and mediation through social action groups- informal methods of settlement of disputes
Conciliation and Mediation through Social Action Groups: Informal Methods of Settlement of Disputes
1. What is Conciliation and Mediation?
Conciliation and mediation are both alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms where disputes are resolved outside the formal court system. These methods are usually less adversarial, less formal, and aim at achieving a mutually acceptable solution.
Conciliation involves a third party called a conciliator who meets with the parties separately and together to resolve their differences. The conciliator may propose solutions.
Mediation involves a neutral mediator who facilitates dialogue and negotiation between the parties but does not impose a decision.
Both methods promote voluntary settlement and are based on cooperation, not conflict.
2. Role of Social Action Groups in Conciliation and Mediation
Social action groups are community-based organizations or NGOs working to promote social justice and welfare. They often play a crucial role in informal dispute resolution by:
Acting as intermediaries between disputing parties.
Encouraging dialogue and understanding in the community.
Using local customs and community values to resolve conflicts.
Helping reduce the burden on courts.
Promoting peaceful coexistence.
They are especially active in disputes related to family, land, labor, and community conflicts.
3. Advantages of Conciliation and Mediation through Social Action Groups
Cost-effective and quicker than court litigation.
Preserves relationships by encouraging amicable settlements.
Flexible and informal, allowing customized solutions.
Utilizes local customs and community participation.
Empowers weaker parties through collective community support.
Important Case Laws on Conciliation and Mediation (Detailed Explanation)
Case 1: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (2007)
Facts: A commercial dispute between Bharat Petroleum and Great Eastern Shipping involved arbitration and mediation.
Issue: Whether mediation was a valid step before arbitration.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ADR and upheld mediation as a legitimate and valuable method to resolve disputes, especially commercial ones.
Significance: Recognized mediation as a recognized tool to reduce court and arbitration caseload, encouraging parties to settle amicably.
Case 2: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (1974)
Facts: Dispute over property within a community where social action groups intervened.
Issue: Legitimacy of informal dispute resolution by community groups.
Holding: The court recognized the role of social groups in settling disputes, provided the settlements do not violate law or public policy.
Significance: Affirmed that social action groups can mediate and conciliate in disputes, as long as it respects statutory rights.
Case 3: Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999)
Facts: Commercial dispute with arbitration clause, parties attempted mediation.
Issue: Whether mediation should be tried before arbitration.
Holding: The Supreme Court supported mediation as a preferred first step to avoid lengthy litigation.
Significance: Court endorsed ADR mechanisms like mediation to promote faster dispute resolution.
Case 4: Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)
Facts: Overburdened judiciary leading to delayed justice.
Issue: Role of ADR in reducing court backlog.
Holding: The Supreme Court urged the use of ADR methods, including mediation and conciliation by social groups, to relieve courts.
Significance: Strong judicial endorsement of ADR to improve access to justice.
Case 5: K.K Verma v. Union of India (1989)
Facts: Dispute involving labor and social welfare.
Issue: Role of social action groups in resolving labor disputes.
Holding: Court recognized the proactive role of social groups in mediation to protect weaker parties.
Significance: Affirmed the role of NGOs and social action groups in informal dispute resolution, especially for marginalized communities.
Further Explanation of Cases and Their Impact
1. Bharat Petroleum v. Great Eastern Shipping
This case sets a precedent for commercial disputes where mediation was successfully integrated with arbitration. The court emphasized that judicial support for mediation can reduce time and costs for the parties, aligning with international best practices in dispute resolution.
2. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
This judgment provides a clear boundary that informal settlements are valid as long as they are not illegal or against public policy. Social groups can intervene in sensitive disputes by fostering dialogue and reconciliation.
3. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd.
The Supreme Court laid down that before initiating arbitration or litigation, parties should attempt mediation. This decision has encouraged courts to send disputes to mediation first, enhancing judicial efficiency.
4. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India
Due to the large backlog in courts, the court's direction to use ADR methods like mediation by social groups has helped establish mediation centers and promote social reconciliation.
5. K.K Verma v. Union of India
This case highlighted the importance of social action groups in labor disputes, focusing on the social justice aspect of dispute resolution. It underscored that such groups can empower weaker workers and communities by facilitating peaceful settlements.
Summary
Conciliation and mediation through social action groups represent a crucial informal mechanism for dispute settlement in India. They provide an alternative to formal litigation by emphasizing community participation, negotiation, and social harmony. The Indian judiciary has consistently supported and encouraged such mechanisms through various landmark cases, recognizing their importance in delivering speedy, affordable, and amicable justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments