| Pub. Date | : March 2022 |
|---|---|
| Product Name | : The IUP Journal of Case Folio |
| Product Type | : Article |
| Product Code | : IJCF030322 |
| Author Name | : Madasu Bhaskara Rao and Pulaparthi Mallika Rao |
| Availability | : YES |
| Subject/Domain | : Management |
| Download Format | : PDF Format |
| No. of Pages | : 11 |
Eight workers of Pricol Limited, Coimbatore, were awarded double life imprisonment
in the year 2015. They were accused of the murder of Roy George, Vice-President-HR,
who had signed the dismissal order of 42 workers. The case was popularly referred to
as 'Pricol 8', and 'Free the Pricol 8'became a rallying cry for trade unions and activists
among workers across the country. Pricol, a highly successful company, is a manufacturer
of automotive ancillaries. It specializes in the manufacture of sensors and speed
governors and driver information systems. The firm has manufacturing facilities both
in India and overseas. Major automotive manufacturers, both domestic and
international, are its customers. This case involved a fight between the labor union
and management. It provides an opportunity for an engrossing discussion in the
classroom on the role of trade union, issues related to industrial dispute, management
tactics for dealing with union, and how labor unions face the consequences of their
struggle even as the company makes progress.
Workers'rights should be a central focus of development.
- Joseph Stiglitz, American Economist
O n December 3, 2015, the Coimbatore Sessions Court judge held eight workers belonging to the Kovai Maavatta Pricol Tozhilargal Ottrumai Sangam (KMPTOS)1 or Coimbatore District Pricol Workers'Unity Union, guilty of killing 47-year old Roy J. George, Vice-President-HR, of Pricol Limited on September 21, 2009, at the company's Perianaickenpalayam unit, Coimbatore. The eight, Gunabalan, Manivannan, Rajendran, Ramamurthy, Sampatkumar, Saravanakumar, Sivakumar, and Velmurugan, were awarded two life sentences to run concurrently-one under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sec.3022 and the other under IPC Sec.449.3 The trial in the case began