Mediation In Labour Disputes: Can Alternative Dispute Resolution Reduce The Burden On Labour Courts?
Mr. Skand GuptaSep 30, 202610.5281/zenodo.23064601
Around the world, labour courts are overwhelmed by huge backlogs, slow processes, and expensive legal fees. This makes it incredibly difficult for both workers and employers to get a fair and timely resolution. To solve this problem, many systems are turning to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods like mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. This paper specifically looks at mediation to see if it can truly ease the burden on courts without stripping workers of their legal rights and protections. Advocates of mediation praise it for being fast, affordable, private, and flexible. However, critics worry that these exact features can harm workers, who are usually the weaker party in an employment dispute. Compared to employers, workers generally have less money, less bargaining power, and less legal knowledge. Because of this imbalance, informal mediation sessions can pressure workers into accepting unfair, lowball settlements just to end the dispute quickly. Additionally, mediation does not create legal precedents, its outcomes can be hard to enforce, and the quality of mediators varies wildly. While mediation has successfully cut down court backlogs in some regions, it often compromises fairness for speed. This paper addresses a major gap in current research: the tendency to praise ADR in theory without looking at how unfair it can be for workers in reality. Ultimately, this study examines whether structural safeguards, such as free legal aid, strict minimum settlement rules, and court reviews, can protect workers during mediation. By weighing the pros and cons, this paper provides a realistic framework to determine if mediation actually helps workers, or if it simply hides workplace inequality behind closed doors.