CKS’s Chembur Karnataka

College of Law
Situational Problems: Labour Laws
LLB 1st Semester
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws
Note for students :
1. The situational problems and answers were discussed in class orally and
adequately.
2. Citing of case laws where ever it was relevant was also done
3. Many students would have already noted down in their working note books.
4. However, some of the questions and short answers topic wise ( Act wise) are
inked out here for your ready reference and perusal , also case laws are cited
alongside answer wherever it is relevant.
5. Since the answer were sufficiently discussed in detail, It will be briefly inked
out here.
6. My best wishes to you all for your final examination. May Mata Saraswati
bestow upon you abundance of knowledge and may success in your life be
always there.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
1. Problem : Mr “A” is a medical representative working in XYZ Pharmaceutical Company , is retrenched
by the employer . He desires to raise an industrial dispute. Can he raise an industrial dispute under the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Answer: The definition of “workman” as given under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
does not include a medical representative retrenched by his employer cannot raise an industrial dispute
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Comments on Section 2(s):
i) The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of
duties being performed by the employee. [S.K.Saini v/s Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., 1994 LIR 321 SC]
ii) The determinative factor is the main duties of the concerned ee and not some works incidentally
done. [S.K.Saini v/s Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., 1994 LIR 321 SC].
iii) Salesman is “workman”. [Management of Reneo Vicker India Ltd., v/s Lt. Governor of Delhi. 1994 LIR
253 (Delhi)].
iv) The broad intention is to take in the entire “labour force” and exclude the “managerial force”.
[Narasimha Anand Joshi v/s Century Shipping Co. 1994 LII 440 (BOM)]. Contd--- page 2
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
Note:
The following are held not to be “workmen”
i) A teacher in a school is not workman [ Venkatraman v/s Labour Court 1982 .1st LLJ 454 (kerala)]
ii) Bank Manager of Cooperative Bank is not a workman [ Madikla Service Co-op Bank v/s Govt.
of Goa ,Diu ,Daman , 1989 1st LLJ 61 SC].
iii) A priest is not workman . Kesava Bhatt v/s Ram Ambulam Trust , 1990 1st LLJ 192 (kerala) ].
iv) A section salesman is not a workman [T.P. Shrivastava v/s National Tobacco Co. , 1992 1st LLJ 86
SC]
v) A Head Master in a school is not workman. [ Jagdish Prasad v/sLabour Court Lucknow 1992 IInd
LLJ 33]
vi) A Physical Education Teacher is not workman. [ Management of Sacred Head Convent School
v/s State of Madras, 1992 1st LLJ 745].
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
2. Problem : An Industrial dispute has arisen between an employer and his
workmen numbering 75 regarding retrenchment of workmen, which is a matter
specified in Third Schedule . The AG refers the dispute to Labour Court . Is the
reference valid?
Answer: Yes it is valid. Under the provision to section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, if, a dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third schedule and, is
not likely to affect more than 100 workmen, the AG may make reference to Labour
Court. In this case, the dispute relates to a matter specified in Third Schedule and
the workmen likely to be affected are numbering 75 i.e less than 100 workmen ,
therefore the reference to the Labour Court is valid.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
3.Problem : A Corporation had granted a compensatory allowance to the workmen
employed therein. The compensatory allowance was subsequently withdrawn by
the corporation. The aggrieved workmen raised dispute on the ground that, the
management introduced the change without giving a notice . State , whether their
contention is maintainable?
Answer: The contention of the workmen that, the management effected a change
without a notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
maintainable. The compensatory allowance constitutes as the term of service
condition. If the same is withdrawn by the management unilaterally , such
withdrawal is illegal because the management violated the provision under section
9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore , the workmen will succeed in their contention.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
4.Problem : An Industrial Dispute an employer and the employees was pending in the
Labour Court, the Central Government appointed a National Tribunal, to which, the matter
was entrusted before the dispute is decided by the Labour Court . One of the parties to
the dispute, does not desire that, the matter should be decided by the National Tribunal
but, it should be decided by the Labour Court. Advise the party.
Answer: Section 10(6) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947, lays down that, if , a reference is
made under sub-section (I-A) to a National Tribunal , no Labour Court or Tribunal shall have
jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
In this case, the dispute , which was initially referred to Labour Court , is entrusted to
National Tribunal. The party who desires that, the said dispute should be decided by
Labour Court , will not succeed in view of the provision of section 10(6) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
5. Problem: A workman who is laid off by his employer at Dadar, Near Kabutar Khana
industrial estate in Mumbai, refuses to accept an alternative employment, offered in
another establishment situated at Sion Koliwada industrial estate in Mumbai, belonging to
the same employer . Is the workman entitled to claim “Lay-off” compensation ?
Answer: the workman is not entitled to claim “lay-off” compensation . Because , section 25-
E of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that, a workman who is laid off , refuses
to accept any alternative employment in any other establishment belonging to the same er
and such alternative employment is situated in the same city, town or within the radius of
five miles from his previous employment, provided that, such alternative employment does
not require any skill or previous experience and it can be done by the employee and wages
are protected i.e. the same wages would be paid to workman in such alternative
employment also.
In this case , it is not clear whether same wages are offered to the workman or not. Assuming that
the wages would be protected, the alternative employment belongs to the same er and it is within
the same city of Mumbai. On these grounds , the workman is not entitled to claim “lay-off”
compensation.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
6.Problem: Railway undertaking employees went on strike suddenly to protest
against termination of service of three workmen. Is the strike legal?
Answer: No. The strike is not legal. Railway undertaking is public utility service
(pus). Section 22 lays down the provision relating to strike in pus . Employees
employed in pus are required to give notice of strike in a prescribed manner with
in 6 weeks before striking . In this case, the employees employed in pus i.e. the
Railway undertaking, have not given notice of strike under section 22 of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947.
Therefore , the strike is not legal
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
7. Problem: A industrial dispute between the employees of Municipal Corporation and
the Management was pending before the Tribunal and employees resorted to strike
relating to the matter of dispute . Is the strike legal ?
Answer: No. The strike is not legal. According to section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947, the employees involved in any Industrial dispute, shall not go on strike , during
the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal and during 2 months , after the
conclusion of such proceedings. In this case , the employees resorted to strike in
connection with the dispute pending before Tribunal . The strike on the part of employees
is in contravention of section 23(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore , the strike is not legal in this case .
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
8.Problem: The workman was laid off for half a day in the morning and was asked
by the er to come in the second half of the dy . The workman was not given work
,even in the second half of the day . Advise the workman.
Answer: in this case , the workman was laid off for half a day in the morning . And
was not given work even in the second half of the day, even after presenting
himself for the work. According to the provision (ii) to explanation of section 2
(kkk), of the id act 1947, if the workman is not given work or any such
employment ,even after presenting after presenting himself in the second half of
the day , he is not treated to be laid off for the second half of the day and he shall
be entitled to full wages and dearness allowances for that part of the day (i.e. half
day) for which he was laid-off .
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
9. Problem : A workman has worked in an establishment for one year and eight
months and was retrenched. Is the employer liable for compensation?
Answer: Yes . The employer is liable for compensation. Under section 25-F of I D
Act , 1947 , the retrenchment compensation is payable to the extent of 15 days
average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof , in
excess of 6 months.
In this case, the workman has put in one year and eight month’s service. He is
eligible for R C to the extent of 15 days pay, for every completed year of continuous
service and since, he has worked for one complete year and next eight months,
which is in excess of 6 months . Therefore , he shall be eligible for 15 days pay for
one complete year and 15 days pay for next eight months i.e. 15 days pay x 2 years
= 30 days pay as a retrenchment compensation.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
10. Problem: The employer gave notice of retrenchment to a workman , terminating his
service with immediate effect . The workman was called upon to collect his dues on the
next pay-day . Advice the workman.
Answer: The retrenchment in this case, is not legal or valid . Such retrenchment is in
contravention of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The notice of
retrenchment should be served upon the workman, one month before such retrenchment
or in lieu of notice, 1 month’s wages should be paid to the workman. Moreover, the
retrenchment compensation to the extent of 15 days average pay for every completed year
of continuous service, should be paid and notice in the prescribed manner, should be
served on the appropriate government for previous permission (Section 25N), to avoid
penalty under section 25-Q of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. But, in this case, it has not
been done so. Therefore the retrenchment in this case is not valid
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
11.Problem: An employer retrenches three senior –most workmen by a notice dated 30th April
,2021 with immediate effect, and calls upon them to collect their dues on 2nd May, 2021 . Advise the
workmen.
Answer: U/s 25-F of I D Act,1947, the workman who has been in continuous service , of not less than
one year, shall not be retrenched, without one month's notice in writing with reasons for
retrenchment or in lieu of notice one month’s wages . The workman shall, also be eligible for the
retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days pay for every completed year of continuous
service . In this case , the employer has violated section25-F of the I D Act, 1947.
The employer has also violated the provision of section 25-G of the I D Act, 1947, by not observing
the procedure for retrenchment . According to this section , the employer is required to observe the
principle of “last come first go”.
In other words , the employer shall retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed .
In this case , he employer has retrenched three senior-most workmen. This action on the part of
the employer , is in violation of section 25-F and Section 25-G of the I D Act, 1947.
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
12.Problem: An employer of an industrial establishment , employing 100 workmen , wants
to close down the establishment on account of unavoidable circumstance beyond his
control . Advise the employer on the procedure to be followed under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Answer: U/s 25-FFA , the employer who intends to close down an undertaking , is required
to serve a notice on the A G at leat 60 days before the date of closure. The workman who
is in c s , for not less than 1 year , shall be entitled to notice and compensation under
section 25-F (fifteen days pay for ever completed year of service ). In the event of closing
down the undertaking , on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of of
the er , the compn payable shall not exceed his average for three months .
However , in this case it is not clear , as to what are the reasons , for which , the
establishment is being closed down . If , the establishment , is closed down merely for the
following reason- …continued on next page
CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
12.Problem: Answer …continued from previous page
(i) financial difficulties (including financial losses); or
(ii) accumulation of undisposed of stocks; or
(iii)the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it; or
(iv) in a case, where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the
minerals in the area, in which such operations are carried on;
The above reasons do not fall within the meaning of unavoidable circumstance beyond the
control of the employer. Therefore, the compensation payable shall be in accordance with
section 25-F (i.e. fifteen days pay for every completed year of continuous service) and shall
not be , in accordance with provision in sub section (2) of section 25-FFF (i.e. compensation
payable shall not exceed the average pay of the workman for three months)
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
13.Problem: The “Award” which was given by the Industrial Tribunal is terminated by the
employer on the expiry of one year. The award has granted increment in wage scale . Is the
employer entitled to stop increment after the termination of award?

Answer: The employer is not entitled to stop the increment after the termination of
award. The employer is not within his right to terminate the award unilaterally. Even
the award is terminated by the employer on expiry of one year, the benefit i.e. the
increment, shall be continued.

• The Bombay High Court, in the case of Jamuna Mill v/s their workmen, held that,
the employer is not entitled to stop the increment granted under the award given by
the Industrial Tribunal.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
14.Problem: An Airline Corporation , 24th May declared a lock-out , to be effective from 25th May on
the ground that, it’s workmen have gone on strike on 20th May. Is the lock-out legal.
Answer: No.
• The lock-out is not legal . Section 24 of Industrial disputes Act, 1947, lays down that, a lock-
out shall be illegal ,if , it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 . Before
declaring a lock-out , the employer is required to give notice of lock-out in the prescribed
form to the employees of 6 weeks before lock-out and, within 14 days of giving such notice,
no lock-out can be declared in the public utility service,like the Airlines Corporation .
• Therefore , the lock out declared by Airline Corporation in this case , is not legal.
• However, as per S.24(3) a lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike
declared in consequence of an illegal lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal. So it is to
be seen whether strike declared by its workmen was legal or illegal nevertheless employer
must follow procedure laid down in S.22 and S.23
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
15.Problem: An “industrial dispute” arises in an industrial establishment where
95 workers are employed . The subject matter of the dispute falls under the
Third Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate Government refers
the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court. Is reference valid ?
Answer: Yes. The reference is valid . The provision to Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that, where the dispute relates to
any matter specified in the Third Schedule , as is not likely to affect
more than 100 workmen , the appropriate Government may, if it so
thinks fit, make reference to Labour Court.
Therefore , in this case , reference is valid
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
16.Problem: Mr Rajesh , employed in the technical post of a pilot in an airline , getting
a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,50,000/- claims that , he is a workman under the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Is the claim justified?
Answer: Yes. The claim of Mr Rajesh that , he is a workman under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is justified . Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
may be referred which defines the “workman”. The definition interalia includes
the word “technical”; Mr Rajesh is employed in the technical post, irrespective
of the wages drawn , is covered by the definition of “workman” under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore , the claim is justified.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
17.Problem: The workmen employed In an Airline gave notice of strike , stating that, they
would go on strike in June 2021 . In fact , they struck the work before the said date . Is the
strike illegal ?
Answer: Yes. The strike is illegal . Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lays
down, a strike shall be illegal if, it is commenced or declared in contravention of
Section 22 or section 23 . The strike shall be illegal if, it is commenced or continued in
public utility service , like the Airlines, within fourteen days of giving such notice of
strike. In this case, the workmen struck before the date of notice of strike which is in
contravention of sub section (c) of section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Therefore , the strike is illegal.

 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: ID Act 1947
A. Industrial Disputes Act , 1947:
18.Problem: An industrial dispute is pending before the Industrial Tribunal regarding revision
of wages scales . Aworkman , who is the leader of the workmen concerned in the dispute, is
found guilty of abusing superior officer. The employer intends to take action against the
workman . Advise the employer.
Answer: The employer can initiate departmental proceedings in accordance with te
standing orders applicable to the workman, for any misconduct connected or not
connected with the dispute, pending before the industrial court regarding the revision
of wage scales . But , if, the employer intends to inflict the punishment of discharge or
dismissal upon the workman, in such event, the employer is required to make an
application to the authority , before which the proceeding of the dispute is pending ,
for approval of the action taken.
These provisions have been made u/s 33(1) & 33(2) .
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
B. MRTU & PULP Act, 1971:
1. Problem: A union in an industrial establishment has 50% of total workmen as its members for
a continuous period of eight months. It plans to apply for recognition under MRTU & PULP Act
1971 -
i. Is the union entitled to be registered under MRTU & PULP Act ?
Answer : U/S 11 of the Act , Any union (hereinafter referred to as the “ applicant union ”)
which has for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the
calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than
thirty per cent of the total number of employees employed in any undertaking may apply
in the prescribed form to the Industrial Court for being registered as a recognised union
for such undertaking. Therefore the union is entitled to be registered as it salsifies the
essential conditions for registration under the Act.
ii. To which authority it shall make an application for such registration ?
Answer: U/S 11 of the Act application in the prescribed manner to be made to Industrial Court.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
B. MRTU & PULP Act, 1971:
2. Problem: An investigating officer was refused entry to the
premises of the workplace of which the i. o. was entitled to enter
by X -
i. Can X be punished under MRTU & PULP Act 1971?
Answer : Yes X can be punished u/s 47 of MRTU& PULP Act 1971 .
ii. If so what is the punishment than can be given to Mr X upport
your answer with relevant provisions.
Answer: U/S 47 of the Act be punished with fine which may extend
to five hundred rupees.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
B. MRTU & PULP Act, 1971:
3. Problem: A proceeding of unfair labour practice was pending before
the competent courts of MRTU & PULP Act 1971. hen the matter was
called on for hearing either parties did not appear though notice of
hearing was duly served for both parties -
i. Are courts empowered to pass exparte orders under such
circumstances?
Answer : Yes under section 31 of MRTU& PULP Act 1971 .
ii. What remedy is available to aggrieved party under such
circumstances?.
Answer: Where any order is made the aggrieved party may within thirty
days of the receipt of the copy thereof, make an application to the
court to set aside such order.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
C. Trade Union Act 1926:
1. Problem : Does right of freedom of speech and expression include rights of
picketing and demonstration ? Right to form a Trade union
Answer: Yes , Re: Kameshwar v/s State of Bihar 1956 ALL 57 , right of freedom of
speech and expression also includes rights of picketing and demonstration .
Re: Ramkrishnaiah v/s Dt. Board 1952 Mad 253 The right to form and continue a TU
is a FR guaranteed under art. 19(1) (c) of COI which can only be subjected to
reasonable restrictions in public interest as provided by Art. 19(1)(6) of COI .
Provision is also in the TUA 1926 for providing immunities to TUs from criminal
prosecution in certain circumstances which further ensure the safe conduct of TUs.
Under various laws ,TUs are required to get themselves registered for certain purposes
.Every TU is required to register itself under the TU Act in order to operate as a Trade
Union.
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
C. Trade Union Act 1926:
2. Problem : Does recognition of Trade Union by employer compulsory as per the Act
?
Answer: After the registration of trade union , the question of its recognition by the
employer comes to the forefront inasmuch as if it is recognised by ER for the purpose
of of collective bargaining, then it will have certain privileges and an opportunity to
fulfil its role.
Re: Indian Airlines Technical Assistance Union v/s Indian Airlines (1995) 1 LLJ 578
(AP) .There is NO PROVISION in the TU Act 1926 or Industrial Dispute Act ,1947 the
only two central enactments in this respect in the country, regarding recognition of a
TU by the EMPLOYERS. (Reference Avtarsingh /Harpreet Kaur page 537 and 538)
No union , registered or otherwise , can lay claim to recognition by the management
for participation in negotiations as a matter of legal right .However , it cannot be
denied that fair play requires management to consider grant of recognition when a
body of person legitimately expects to be affected. The right of recognition has be
secured by trade unions by raising an Industrial dispute (more detail read page 538)
 CKS’s Chembur Karnataka College of Law :
Situational Problems Labour Laws: MRTU & PULP
C. Trade Union Act 1926:
3. Problem : Does the management enjoy a right to refuse to deal with an outside
trade union leader ?
Answer: Re: P. Naresh Kumar , LLJ Nov.2002 . It is clear that the union has every
right to have its own type of leadership ,whether inside or outside .
However,when the union and management decide to have transaction , both can
lay down standards , norms and conditions for such transactions or relationship.
While the right of association is fundamental , the right of transaction can be
conditional and is based on mutual satisfaction. Merely because a union is
registered under law to get a legal personality , this registration does not confer a
right for automatic recognition by the employer. Therefore, an organistaion
cannot be legally compelled to discuss or negotiate with an outsider even if he is
duly elected representative of the workmen and is an office bearer of the trade
union. (Please refer more topical cases from Avtar Singh)
-----00000-----