Introduction What is industrial relation? Hyman (1980, para.1) defines industrial relation as an interdisciplinary field which encompasses the study of all aspects of employees in the course o executing their duties. In his earlier attempts to develop a general theory of industrial relations, Hyman defined its essence in terms of three “actors”. These actors include employers and managers, workers and their representatives and government agencies. He also defines it in terms of three “contexts” that includes technology, market constraints and the distribution of power in the society. Despite all these, the role of government and politics did not figure in his studies and that of early English writers. The studies focused on the rules negotiated between employers and employees. The focus of this essay is to compare the traditional pluralists’ assumptions about industrial relations with specific emphasis on the role of the state and compare with the role of the state in industrial relations currently in Australia Historical perspective on the role of the state in industrial relations Hyman focuses on economic and technological factors which employment regulation. He treats politics and government as peripheral and emphasizes on collective bargaining as central. Diversity in Anglo Saxon industrial relations was the product of distinctive and prioritization of “industrializing elites’’ who had created the process of economic modernization. This created a convergence towards a common market regulation that matched Anglo American “pluralistic industrialism”. This was a system that allowed employers and unions to formulate increasingly effective and non conflict in bargaining relationships thus rendering detailed state regulation unnecessary. In light of this, mature industrial systems were assumed to be detached from the political process. English language in this subject has typically treated industrial relations and politics as different spheres. While government intervention in labor relations is allowed, it is usually bounded and issue specific. In addition, the welfare of the state and labor relations are treated as two separate socio-economic sub-systems. This perspective contrasts with that in other countries where the state plays a key role in industrial relations. Hyman argues that it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the institutions that make up the government. It is therefore misleading to talk of state intervention because the state is an integral part of any productive system. The state may be viewed as a configuration of organization and actions which influences the meaning and methods of politics for all groups and classes within the society (Treuren, 2000, p. 9). In addition, he characterizes the state “as a network structure with no permanent content.” The groups and the structures active in society therefore are constantly recreating the state. There is however a consensus that there is no distinction between the state and the civil society among scholars. While governments may be regarded as actors who intervene in industrial relations, we cannot talk of state as intervening and the yet it shapes and conditions industrial relations. This arises from the fact tha