Rakesh was working as Joint Commissioner in Transport Department of a city. As a part of his job profile, among others, he was entrusted with the task of overseeing the control and functioning of City Transport Department. A case of strike by the drivers’ union of City Transport Department over the issue of compensation to a driver who died on duty while driving the bus came up before him for decision in the matter. He gathered that the driver (deceased) was plying Bus No. 528 which passed through busy and congested roads of the city. It so happened that near an intersection on the way, there was an accident involving the bus and a car driven by a middle-aged man. It was found that there was altercation between the driver and the car driver. Heated arguments between them led to fight and the driver gave him a blow. Lot of passerbys had gathered and tried to intervene but without success. Eventually, both of them were badly injured and profusely bleeding and were taken to the nearby hospital. The driver succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved. The middle-aged driver’s condition was also critical but after a day, he recovered and was discharged. Police had immediately come at the spot of accident and FIR was registered. Police investigation revealed that the quarrel in question was started by the bus driver and he had resorted to physical violence. There was exchange of blows between them. The City Transport Department management is considering of not giving any extra compensation to the driver’s (deceased) family. The family is very aggrieved, depressed and agitated against the discriminatory and non-sympathetic approach of the City Transport Department management. The bus driver (deceased) was 52 years of age, was survived by his wife and two school-college going daughters. He was the sole earner of the family. The City Transport Department workers’ union took up this case and when found no favourable response from the management, decided to go on strike. The union’s demand was two-fold. First was full extra compensation as given to other drivers who died on duty and secondly employment to one family member. The strike has continued for 10 days and the deadlock remains. (a) What are the options available to Rakesh to meet the above situation? (b) Critically examine each of the options identified by Rakesh. (c) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Rakesh? (d) What course of action would Rakesh adopt to diffuse the above situation?
Subtopic: Case Study · compassion, culpability and industrial dispute over compensation
How to structure your answer
Written within the word limit
262 words · target 250 words · 20 min
Brief facts
Rakesh, Joint Commissioner, must decide on a 10-day driver's-union strike. A bus driver died on duty after an altercation he himself started; management refuses extra compensation, while his family (widow, two studying daughters, sole earner lost) and the union demand full compensation and a job for a dependant.
Stakeholders
- The deceased driver's grieving, dependent family.
- The workers' union and striking employees.
- The Transport Department management and the commuting public affected by the strike.
- Rakesh (fairness, law, industrial peace).
Options and evaluation
- Fully deny compensation citing the driver's fault. Legally arguable but harsh, ignores the innocent family and prolongs the strike — disproportionate.
- Grant full compensation as to any on-duty death. Compassionate and ends the strike but may reward misconduct and set a costly precedent.
- Balanced, case-specific resolution. Recognise the death occurred on duty while apportioning the driver's contributory fault — provide humanitarian ex-gratia relief and welfare support to the innocent family, consider compassionate employment on merit, while distinguishing this from routine full compensation.
Ethical dilemmas
- Compassion for a blameless family versus the driver's own culpability and moral hazard.
- Industrial peace and public convenience versus fair, rule-based decision-making.
Course of action to defuse the strike
Rakesh should open dialogue with the union and management, keep buses running via interim arrangements, and craft a fair middle path: humanitarian ex-gratia and welfare assistance (education support for the daughters, provident/insurance dues, possible compassionate appointment) separated from the general on-duty-death entitlement, so the family is not punished for the breadwinner's lapse while moral hazard is contained. Transparent, empathetic negotiation and a written, reasoned order will restore trust and end the deadlock.
What an examiner expects to see
- Dilemma: compassion for an innocent, dependent family versus the deceased's own contributory fault.
- Full denial is harsh and prolongs the strike; unconditional full compensation risks moral hazard.
- Best path: humanitarian ex-gratia plus welfare support, distinct from routine on-duty-death compensation.
- Consider compassionate appointment on merit for a dependant.
- Keep public transport running through interim arrangements during negotiation.
- Engage union and management in transparent, empathetic dialogue.
- Issue a reasoned, written order to restore trust and end the deadlock.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and rules on 'arising out of and in the course of employment'.
- Government schemes of compassionate appointment for dependants of employees dying in harness.
- Ex-gratia and welfare relief precedents balancing compassion with contributory negligence.