Industrial Disputes Act Questions and Answers

Answer: A

The machinery for settling industrial disputes consists of conciliation, voluntary arbitration, a court of inquiry and adjudicating authorities. The first option lists exactly these. A settlement commission is a body of income-tax law, not an industrial dispute body, and 'complementing authority' is not a body of the Industrial Disputes Act. Compulsory arbitration is not generally part of the machinery, which relies on voluntary arbitration, so the other options contain wrong items.

Answer: B

Non-recognition of unions is a managerial cause of industrial disputes, because it reflects the attitude of management towards the workers' organisation. Low wages and share in profits are economic causes, and safety of work belongs with working conditions. So the managerial cause among the options is the non-recognition of unions.

Answer: C

The Industrial Disputes Act was passed in 1947. It extends to the whole of India and applies to all industrial establishments employing one or more workmen, and it lays down the machinery for investigating and settling industrial disputes. The years 1932, 1935 and 1991 are not the year of this Act.

Answer: D

The key gives Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The Assertion records the dispute: a sweeper dismissed by a charitable trust, and the trust's defence that it is not an 'industry' under Section 2(j), so that the worker is not a workman and the retrenchment safeguards of Section 25-F do not apply. The Reason supplies the facts on which that defence is judged. Under the triple test in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), an activity is an industry where there is systematic activity, organised by co-operation between employer and employees, for the production or distribution of goods or services. A charity loses its exemption when it hires paid staff and carries on organised, partly commercial work.

Read that way, the Reason is what decides the dispute in the Assertion: the trust's commercial ventures and paid, organised workforce make it an industry, so its challenge fails and Section 25-F applies. The options that treat either statement as false, or the two as unconnected, miss that link.

Answer: C

The answer is (A) is correct but (R) is incorrect.

The Assertion is right: in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A. Rajappa (1978), a seven-judge bench gave 'industry' in Section 2(j) a very wide meaning, covering any systematic activity organised by cooperation between employer and employees for the production or distribution of goods and services to satisfy human wants, the 'triple test'.

The Reason is wrong. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 did not approve that widening: it rewrote Section 2(j) to exclude a number of activities, such as hospitals, educational and charitable institutions and sovereign functions. Moreover, the amended definition was never brought into force, so the law did not change as the Reason says.

Answer: D

'Settlement' under Section 2(p) is related to conciliation.

Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a settlement as one arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding, and includes a written agreement between employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in such a proceeding, if it is signed by the parties and sent to the government and the conciliation officer.

A strike is a stoppage of work, not an agreement. A Labour Court decides disputes by an award, and arbitration under Section 10A also ends in an award, not a settlement.

Answer: B

The case is Crompton Greaves Ltd. v Workmen.

In Crompton Greaves Ltd. v Workmen (1978) the Supreme Court held that workmen are entitled to wages for the period of a strike only if the strike is both legal and justified. A strike that is legal but unjustified, or illegal, does not earn wages for the days lost.

The other cases are on different subjects. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) held judicial review by the High Courts to be part of the basic structure in the context of tribunals. T.K. Rangarajan v Government of Tamil Nadu (2003) held that government employees have no fundamental right to strike. Coir Board, Ernakulam v Indira Devi P.S. concerned the definition of 'industry'.

Answer: D

Lay-off can be for any period, including less than a day.

Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines lay-off as the failure or refusal of an employer, for reasons such as shortage of coal, power or raw materials or breakdown of machinery, to give employment to a workman on the muster roll. Its Explanation provides that a workman who presents himself and is not given work within two hours is laid off for that day, and one asked to come back for the second half of the shift is laid off for half the day.

Because a half-day lay-off is expressly contemplated, there is no minimum of one day or one week, and the options setting such a minimum are wrong.

Answer: C

The Industrial Tribunal is a machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute can be referred to a tribunal for adjudication.

The Indian Labour Conference and the Standing Labour Committees are tripartite consultative bodies that advise on labour policy, not adjudicating bodies. The Joint Management Council is a participative body at plant level for consultation, and does not settle disputes.

Answer: D

All the statements are wrong. Under section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an award means an interim or final determination of any industrial dispute by a labour court, industrial tribunal or national tribunal, and includes an arbitration award made under section 10A.

Each of statements (a) to (d) says that one of these is not an award, so each contradicts the definition. The options calling any of them true, or all of them true, are therefore wrong.