Venkat starred the meeting by explaining why he had known  it and then asked Gupta for his opinion of the difficulty. The conversation took the following shape:

Gupta: That Delhi girl you recruited is a 'fault finding machine' in our dept. Until she was hired, we hardly even stopped production. And when we did, it was only due to of a mechanical defect. But Madhuri has been stopping all even if 'one' defective part comes down the line.

Madhuri: That's not true. You have fabricated the story well.

Gupta: Venkat, our quality has not undergone any change in recent times. It's still the similar, consistently good quality it was before she came but all she wants to do is to trouble us.

Madhuri: May I clarify my position at this stage? Mr. Gupta, you have never relished my attendance in the company. I still remember some of the derisive remarks you used to make behind my back. I did take note of them quite clearly!

 1.   Should Venkat have known a meeting to sort out this problem? Why or Why not? 

2.    What do you say about the rule calling for production to halt if there are more than three rejects in an hour? Should it have been enforced? Describe.

3.    What do you feel is the main problem in this case?