LLB Fifth Term Examination- 2020

Paper No: LB- 503

Title of Paper: Industrial Law including IDRA
Duration: 3 Hours Maximum Marks: 100
Instruction to the students:
a. Answer may be written in English or in Hindi; but same medium should be used
throughout the paper.
b. Attempt any four questions.
c. All questions carry equal marks.

1. Mrs. Pompy was reemployed as a computer operator in a factory for another

period of two years on contract basis. It was not a regular appointment. One
day, there was strike in the Factory in which Mrs. Pompy also participated.
According to the management it was an illegal strike. Regarding the legality
of the strike there was dispute and it was pending before the Conciliation
officer. During the pendency of the dispute Mrs. Pompy’s employment was
terminated. The management also refused to renew the contract as she
participated in the strike. She has filed an application under section 33-A
alleging that the employer has contravened the provisions of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. Discuss the case.

2. Workers of ABC Ltd. raised an industrial dispute against ABC Ltd. regarding
a dispute relating to percentage of bonus and certain changes made by the
management, bringing 5 Imported Machines to the factories which will impact
the labour force in the 5 factories, as these machine is equal to 300 workman’s
output. The appropriate govt. referred the dispute to conciliation. Issue on
Bonus was however settled but Conciliator submitted a failure report stating
that only ABC Ltd. is a company who brought those machines and no other
company has brought it till now and workmen of ABC Ltd may be at risk of
losing jobs as per his observances. Matter was referred to Tribunal. On plea
of ABC Ltd. Tribunal allowed ABC Ltd to raise the issue of Bonus as it was
part of the dispute raised in reference. Tribunal rejected the contentions of
Workmen regarding bonus as well as bringing imported machines by ABC
Ltd. Award was passed on 15th October 2016 and was received by Appropriate
Government on 20th October 2016. Award was published on 25th November
 2016. An appeal was filed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal and
The workmen also raised an objection, that the award was inoperative and
unenforceable as it was published after the expiry of the period as provisioned
under the Industrial Dispute act, 1947. Decide.

3. Mr. Ramu was working as a helper at Hare Krishna Transport Company Ltd.
Company provided the facility of pick and drop to the workers from their
respective places. Working hours were 9 am to 6 Pm and pick up and drop
timings were 8:20 am and 6:40 Pm. Ramu was using this facility for a long
time. On 10th Oct 2018, After discharging his duty, the drop facility was not
provided by the Company and Mr. Ramu picked up another transport vehicle
for his home. The vehicle met with an accident at around 6:30 pm. He was
hospitalized for a month and lost his one leg. Later the Company also declared
him as unfit for work and dismissed him. Mr. Ramu claimed compensation
from the Company, but it was denied saying that he met with an accident after
the work hours and outside the company premises. Discuss the case and
suggest remedies.

4. A transport company dismissed certain workmen. The district motor transport

worker’s union raised a dispute with the management and demanded
reinstatement of the dismissed workmen as well as the payment of
retrenchment compensation regarding the workmen who were retrenched. The
demand not having been met with by the management and conciliation having
failed, the state government was approached for making a reference of the
dispute for adjudication. The state government declined to make a reference
on the ground that out of 60 workmen employed in the concern only 18
workmen supported the demand and these 18 included the 13 dismissed
workers of the company. However, the dispute was referred by the
government for adjudication on the request of the workers being made for
third time. When the labour court commenced the proceedings in respect of
this dispute the management contended that the dispute referred by the state
government for adjudication is not an Industrial dispute under section 2 (k) of
the act in as much as the cause of the workmen has not been espoused by a
substantial body of the workmen of the company. The labour court accepted
the plea of the workmen that the dispute was an Industrial dispute and
overruled the preliminary objections. The company filed a writ petition in the
 high court for quashing the order of the labour court, as well as the reference
made by the state government. Decide.

5. Mr. Anand, a workmen employed at KHANNA enterprises since last 5 yrs.

One day he assaulted his senior Mr. Harish using a shoe and also used abusive
language. Management of Khanna Enterprises conducted a proper domestic
inquiry and found Mr. Anand guilty of a misconduct and dismissed Mr. Anand
without paying anything. A dispute was raised by Mr. Anand (under the
relevant provisions) before the Tribunal on the grounds that his dismissal is
unfair. Later the Industrial tribunal ordered reinstatement of Mr. Anand on
ground of low gravity misconduct. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal,
Khanna enterprises filed a Special leave petition before the Honorable
Supreme Court challenging the order of Industrial Tribunal. Discuss the case
and relevant provisions under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

6. XYZ company followed a dynamic wage system of paying the Dearness

allowance (DA) which was based on cost of living Index and Basic wage.
Company made the progressive modifications in the wage structure and it was
accepted by the workmen from time to time and this became the basic feature
of the wage structure. XYZ company faced huge financial crisis in a particular
year, and hence retrenched many workers as per policy. Later the company
decided to abolish the existing dynamic wage system and implementing a
fixed DA system to the prejudice of the workmen. A dispute was raised by the
Worker’s Union against the XYZ company. Tribunal decided in favour of
Company stating that the action is valid as per the circumstances. Workmen
filed a writ petition before the High Court, where it was dismissed. The
present appeal by way of Special Leave is lying before the Honorable
Supreme Court. Discuss.