Scribd
Upload
655 views8 pages

Case Study For Mba HR Students

1. Sharma, a longtime employee of Bharat Steel Structures Limited, was reported by his supervisor Mahto for frequently being absent from his work area and gossiping. 2. On June 18th, Mahto reported that Sharma had assaulted and manhandled him outside the main gate around 12:40pm after Mahto had left the shop to inquire about a file. 3. Sharma was charged by the Deputy Works Manager for misconduct and assaulting Mahto. In his defense, Sharma claimed the Deputy Works Manager was targeting him and that he did not assault Mahto. An inquiry committee found Sharma guilty of the charges.

Uploaded by

kanika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
655 views8 pages

Case Study For Mba HR Students

1. Sharma, a longtime employee of Bharat Steel Structures Limited, was reported by his supervisor Mahto for frequently being absent from his work area and gossiping. 2. On June 18th, Mahto reported that Sharma had assaulted and manhandled him outside the main gate around 12:40pm after Mahto had left the shop to inquire about a file. 3. Sharma was charged by the Deputy Works Manager for misconduct and assaulting Mahto. In his defense, Sharma claimed the Deputy Works Manager was targeting him and that he did not assault Mahto. An inquiry committee found Sharma guilty of the charges.

Uploaded by

kanika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

CASE STUDY FOR MBA STUDENTS

Prashant Prabhakar
BBA,MBA,LLB, PH.D IN MANAGEMENT(P)
NET-JUNE 2012
NET-DECEMBER 2012
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
Bharat Steel Structures Limited was a large public sector
undertaking having 40,000 employees. It’s Fabrication Shop
fabricated structures and paired various equipments. The
shop was headed by the Deputy Works manager
(Mechanical), who reported to the Works Manager
(Mechanical),who in turn reported to the General Manager
(Works). Sharma joined the company in 1980 as a fabricator
Grade II, which was a skilled job. His job was to fabricate
and repair different equipments under his supervisor's
guidance. Initially Sharma was sincere, well behaved, and
dedicated. Soon he became one of the best workers in the
shop. After some time, however, Sharma started losing
interest in his job and gradually became indifferent.
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
Frequently he picked up quarrels with his fellow
workers on trivial issues. Mahto, Supervisor of
Sharma's shift, reported against him to the I Deputy
Works Manager. Mahto complained that most of
the time Sharma was not available at his work
place, and even when he was available he was
found gossiping with other workers. The Deputy
Works Manager orally warned Sharma and told him
to improve his performance; otherwise suitable
action would be taken against him.
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
On June 18, Sharma and Mahto were in the
morning shift (6 a.m. to 2 p.m.). At 12.30 p.m.
Mahto left the shop and went to the Administration
Building, which was outside the plant premises to
enquire about a file. Mahto informed the Deputy
Works Manager before leaving the shop. At 12.40
p.m. Mahto was assaulted and manhandled on the
road just outside the main gate. Mahto was taken to
the hospital by some workers. Mahto lodged a
complaint that Sharma had
assaulted him.
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
Sharma was subsequently charge-sheeted by the
Deputy Works Manager for misconduct and was
asked to reply within seven days. The charge-sheet
said:
1. "On June 18 at 12.45 p.m. you assaulted Mahto on
the road outside the main gate while he was going
out of the plant. During the previous week he had
reported about your lack of interest in work and
frequent absence from work place without
permission. Instead of improving your performance,
you assaulted him, apparently because he had
complained against you."
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
2. "You were absent from your duty without
permission between 12.30 p.m. and 1.40 p.m. on
June 18.”
In his reply of June 29 (within seven days as
required) Sharma alleged that the Deputy Works
Manager had certain malice against him as he had
not obliged him by manufacturing and supplying a
cupboard for his household use. The manager had
concocted the case to victimize him.
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO
Moreover, he claimed that he and Mahto were present
on their duty up to 1.45 p.m. Hence, the question of his
assaulting Mahto did not arise. He further stated that
he was on good terms with Mahto. The Works Manager
did not find the reply to be satisfactory and constituted
an enquiry committee consisting of the Senior Manager
(Training) and the Senior Personnel Officer. Sharma fully
participated in the enquiry and was assisted by a co-
worker. The committee held Sharma guilty of the
misconducts mentioned in the charge-sheet.
SHARMA ASSAULTS MAHTO

The Works Manager was thinking about the action to


be taken against Sharma and how to avoid such
situations in future.
Questions
1. Identify the problem in the case.
2. How do you see the act of Sharma? Critically evaluate
with reference to his reply to the enquiry committee.
3. How would you tackle the problem to avoid recurrence
of such incidents, if you were the Works Manager?
4. Do you see any role of organizational climate as a
factor? Comment.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy