Minimalist IAS
2017 GS Paper IV

UPSC CSE (Main) 2017 · GS Paper IV · Question 11

What recommendation would you provide to the management ? Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the…

Syllabus line: Case studies — “Case Studies on above issues.”

GS Paper IV 2017 · Q11 (Section B)

20 marks · 250 words Case studies

You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation.

What recommendation would you provide to the management ? Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.

Approach · directive: “what recommendation / discuss merits and demerits”

What it asks · Recommend how management should treat the family's claim and the strike, and weigh the merits and demerits of each option.

The question has 2 parts — answer each

  1. Recommend to the management how to deal with the family's compensation claim and the workers' strike
  2. Discuss the merits and demerits of each recommendation or option

Open with · The case sets the company's alcohol and safety rules against a bereaved family's need and the workers' collective anger.

Cover

  • Stakeholders: the family of the deceased, striking workers, management and shareholders, and labour and safety authorities.
  • Law: the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 exempts the employer for drink-related accidents only when injury does not result in death; a death on duty stays compensable.
  • Option 1: deny compensation. Merit: upholds the alcohol rule and deters drinking. Demerit: may be unlawful, harsh on the family, prolongs the strike and hurts morale.
  • Option 2: pay the dues the law requires to the dependants and act separately on the alcohol lapse. Merit: lawful, humane, ends strike. Demerit: may seem to excuse misconduct.
  • Option 3: negotiated ex gratia or partial payment. Merit: quick settlement. Demerit: uncertain legality if dues are higher, and it sets a precedent.
  • Recommendation: pay lawful dues and support the family, for example a job for a dependant; end the strike through talks; enforce the alcohol policy with checks and counselling.
  • Prevention: ask how a drunk worker was allowed on duty, improve supervision and safety training, and set up a joint safety committee with worker representatives.

Close with · Law and compassion point the same way: settle the family's dues, fix the safety gaps and enforce the alcohol rule fairly.

Add value (verified)

Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·

Model answer · 368 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS

The case pits the company's alcohol rule against a bereaved family's need and the workforce's anger. The HR head must find a course that is lawful, humane and sustainable.

Stakeholders

  • The dependants; striking workers and their union; management, board and shareholders; supervisors on duty that day; labour and safety authorities; customers hit by the stoppage.

Ethical issues and facts to establish

  • Compassion against consistency: fairness to an innocent family versus even-handed enforcement of the alcohol rule.
  • Shared responsibility: a drunk worker was allowed on duty, so supervision failed too.
  • The law: the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, then in force, exempted the employer for drink-related accidents only where the injury did not result in death or permanent total disablement; a death on duty remained compensable.

Options, with merits and demerits

OptionMeritDemerit
Deny compensationUpholds the ruleLikely unlawful; prolongs strike
Pay statutory dues; act on the lapseLawful, humane, ends strikeMay look like condoning drink
Ex gratia payment onlyQuick, cheaperTurns a right into charity

My recommendation to the management

  • Pay promptly: settle the statutory compensation and add humane support: a job for a dependant, help with the children's education and insurance claims.
  • Talk, not confront: share the investigation with workers' representatives and end the strike on the strength of this settlement, not under pressure.
  • Enforce the rule for the living: breath checks at the gate, counselling and de-addiction support, graded penalties, and accountability of the supervisors who let him work.
  • Why: it obeys the law, honours the family's dignity and restores trust, while still protecting safety; a rule is upheld by prevention, not by punishing a widow.

Systemic fix

  • Prevention by design: a joint safety committee with worker members, regular safety training, a written fitness-for-duty protocol and a standing welfare fund.
  • New law: since 21 November 2025, four Labour Codes, including the Code on Social Security, 2020, have replaced 29 older central labour statutes; HR policy must be realigned to them.

Portia's plea that earthly power shows "likest God's When mercy seasons justice" fits this case: here law and compassion point the same way, so settle the dues, close the safety gaps and enforce the alcohol rule before the shift, not after the funeral.

Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.

Also asked on this syllabus line

All questions on Case studies →