Arpit sir

Q. 1 Decide/Identify the party/parties against whom you can file the case/appeal?

● The appeal can be filed against the representing employers Cemon Industries, Ltd.,
Vadodara & others and Cemon Sugars Works Ltd.

Q. 2 Identify an appropriate authority where you have locus to represent this case with relevant
legal provisions against the above mentioned parties

● The appeal against the award of the arbitrator can be filed in the High Court

Q.3 Identify the issues involved in this case and frame issues with respect to present parties
decide by you?

● The issue involved in this case pertains to the non-payment of wages and salaries to the
employees during the period of strike.
● Another issue involved in the case is that whether employees are liable to pay the
compensation to the Cemon Industries, Ltd., Vadodara & others and Cemon Sugars
Works Ltd .

Arguments Advanced

4.1 Legal Provision to support you issues

● Issue 1- The first issue pertains to the non-payment of wages and salaries to the
employees but in the present case employees are entitled to get the wages and salaries
for the strike period because as mentioned in the fact that a strike notice was served by
CIWU on Cemon Industries Limited. The right to strike is not absolute under our
industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it. These restrictions are
found in sections 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23 of the ID Act. Any strike which is
commenced or declared in contravention of Section 22 or 23 or is continued in
contravention of an order made under Section 10(3) or 10A(4A), is considered illegal
as per Section 24 of the ID Act. Thus, Section 24 of the ID Act makes it abundantly
clear that if a strike does not contravene the provisions of ID Act, same can be termed
 as a legal strike. But in the present the procedure of strike given under section 22 and
23 of the act is fulfilled and the strike was not an illegal strike under section 24 of the
ID Act. Since, the ID Act is silent upon the wages during the period of strike the issue
of denial of wages during the period of strike has been under constant judicial scrutiny
in various courts or tribunals across the country and in various cases it has been held by
the court that employees and workers are entitled to get wages and salary during legal
strike. The judicial precedent have held that where a strike is not in contravention of
any statutory provision and consequently are not illegal nor is unjustified, there is no
reason to deprive the workmen of their wages during the period of strike.
Therefore, in the present case the strike is both legal and is also justified and therefore,
employees are entitled to get the salaries and wages during the period of strike.
● Issue 2- The second issue pertains to the strike notice served by CIWU on Cemon
Industries Limited The employees are not liable to pay any compensation because
section 18 (1) of the Trade Unions Act provides immunity from civil suits to the
registered trade unions against any civil suit in respect of any act done in contemplation
or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is a party on
the ground only that such act induces some other person to break a contract of
employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment of
some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or of
his labour as he wills. Therefore, even if the employers have suffered losses due to
strikes, the employees are not liable to pay any compensation because section 18 says
that if any act is done in the furtherance of trade dispute then even if employers suffer
losses due to such act, the trade union is immune from such act..

4.2 Case Laws to support your arguments

● In the case of Management of Chitrakulam Tea Estates (P) Ltd. vs. Its
Workman AIR 1969 SC988, the question of deduction of wages during the period
of strike was also dealt with by the three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In the present case the Hon'ble Court held that the factory workers
are entitled to wages for the day on which they were on strike since the strike
was neither illegal nor unjustified.
Surbhi ma’am

Q. 1 Identify the issues involved in this case and frame issues with respect to it?

● The issue involved in this case is that whether the Eshew business is as industry or not
for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Q.2 Arguments Advance

4.1 Legal Provision to support your issues

According to the definition given under section 2(j) of the Industrial disputes act, ‘industry’ is
“Any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers; It also specifically
includes the following Any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or
avocation of workmen.”

The present case involves a business which does an charitable work and doesn’t involve in any
profit making activity. Therefore, the Eshcew business can be categorized as an charitable
industry (according to three categorization made in the case of Bombay Water Supply Case)
“Those that make no profit but hire the service of employees as in any other business, but the
goods/ services which are the output, are made available at a low or no cost to the indigent
poor”. Because Eshcew business don’t make any profit from these activities of helping the
distressed. However, they do hire volunteers and volunteers are given a stipend, autonomous
environment and liberal working hours. Also, they have managers or coordinators that train,
supervise, and check their work outcomes which show that the main objective of the Eshew
business is fulfilled by the cooperation between these volunteers (employees) and the
employers. Therefore, Eshew business is an Industry

However, the amendment which was made in 1982 propounded a new definition of industry
and according to it, industry includes “‘any systematic activity carried on by cooperation
between an employer and his workmen (Whether such workmen are employed by such
employer directly or by or through any agency including a contractor) for the production,
supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not
being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature)” but it doesn’t include
“institutions owned or managed by organizations wholly or substantially engaged in any
charitable, social or philanthropic service”. Therefore, after the amendment Eschew business,
being a charitable industry is not an industry for the purposes of section 2 (j) of IDA act. But
the amendment has not been come into force till date.

4.2 Case Laws to support your arguments

● The question whether particular business is an industry or not under section 2 (j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act or not has been extensively dealt in the case of Bombay Water
Supplies case. In the case of Bombay Water Supplies Case, SC has overruled many
earlier judgments, and defined industry (a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized
by co-operation between employer and employee, (the direct and substantial element is
chimerical)(iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated
to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material
things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale, prasad or food),
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the
public, . It is immaterial whether or not there is profit motive or whether or not there is
capital. If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be exempted from
scope of definition of industry.
● The court in this case has divided charitable institutions in three categories
● (a) Those that yield profit, but the profits are not siphoned off for altruistic purposes;
● (b) Those that make no profit but hire the service of employees as in any other
business, but the goods/ services which are the output, are made available at a low or no
cost to the indigent poor; and
● (c) Those that are oriented on a humane mission fulfilled by men who work, not
because they are paid wages, but because they share the passion for the cause and
derive job satisfaction.
● The first two categories are industries, but not the third, on the assumption that they
all involve co-operation between employers and employees.
● The present case pertains to the second category of the charitable institutions where
though there is no profit but the Eschew business has hired the volunteers and also pay
them stipend. Also, it’s mentioned that they have managers or coordinators to train,
supervise, and check the work outcomes of the volunteers. Therefore, there is contract
of service and the work done by the Eschew is done through the co-operation between
employees and the employer. Hence the Eschew business is an industry.