The study if industrial relations like some other fields of study present a complex set of definitions of which none is universally agreed as the most appropriate definition. Some authors advocate for the definition of the scope of industrial relations in narrow terms in order to grasp its concepts, while others prefer a broader view of a network of social relationships in the industry.

Flanders (1965:10) articulates that the study of industrial relations may be described as a study of institutions of job regulation. Job regulation is defined as the process of controlling job content through the creation of rules. There can be unilateral job regulation, by management or by workers/unions, or joint job regulation through collective
The issue of group behavior, culture, beliefs and religion also affect how people relate in the work situation. Powers of the parties to industrial relations can be derived from the economic, the social and the political set up, which has nothing to do with job regulations.

Hyman prefers to define industrial relations in terms of processes of control over work relations. This definition provides a criterion for excluding merely personal relationships in industry from the field of study, while including the informal processes of control. It helps indicate that the continuous relationship of conflict, whether open or concealed, stems from a conflict of interests in industry and society which is closely linked with the operation of contradictory tendencies in the capitalist economic system.

Though Flanders definition of industrial relations in terms of job regulation is restrictive, it is unavoidable that rules of all kinds do pervade the world of work and employment and institutions which devise and implement these rules are of central importance to the study of industrial relations. The implication is that industrial relations is all about the maintenance of stability and regularity in the industry. The