KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2013 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Labour Law I 2013 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all questions. (2) One essay type and one short note question or problem from each unit have to be attempted. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answers should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain the term 'workman'. Distinguish workman from independent contractor.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, the term "workman" in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947: its five elements (a person, employed, in an industry, to do work of a listed kind, for hire or reward on express or implied terms), the inclusions (apprentices; persons dismissed in connection with a dispute) and the four exclusions, with the cases on the kinds of work (H.R. Adyanthaya) and on non-workmen (Dimakuchi Tea Estate); Part B, workman and independent contractor: why the line matters; contract of service and contract for service; the tests the courts use: control (Dharangadhara Chemical Works), the right to direct the manner of work, and the wider economic-control approach that looks behind contractors (Hussainbhai; Steel Authority of India on sham contracts); three examples; a table of differences; the Industrial Relations Code 2020 (section 2(zr)); a conclusion.
Part A: the term "workman"
Section 2(s) defines a workman as "any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied".
Its elements.
- A person. Any individual, including an apprentice.
- Employed. There must be a relationship of employer and employee. This is where the independent contractor falls out, as Part B explains.
- In an industry. The employer's activity must be an "industry" under section 2(j).
- To do work of a listed kind. Manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. A person employed for some other kind of work is not a workman.
- For hire or reward. He must be paid. The terms may be written, oral or implied.
The inclusion. For any proceeding about an industrial dispute, the term includes a person dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with it. It also includes one whose dismissal led to the dispute.
The exclusions. The term does not include a person who:
- is subject to the Air Force, Army or Navy Acts;
- is employed in the police service or as an officer or employee of a prison;
- is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
- is employed in a supervisory capacity and draws wages above ten thousand rupees a month, or exercises mainly managerial functions.
H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737. Dismissed medical representatives claimed to be workmen. A five-Judge Bench held that a person is a workman only if employed to do one of the listed kinds of work. Promoting sales is not among them, so they were not workmen.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353. Workmen took up the dismissal of an Assistant Medical Officer of the estate. The Supreme Court held that he was not a workman. A dispute about a non-workman in whom the workmen have no direct and substantial interest is not an industrial dispute.
Other Acts draw the line differently. The Factories Act 1948 defines a "worker" in section 2(l) as a person employed in a manufacturing process, "directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor)". It counts him whether he is paid or not. The Employee's Compensation Act covers an "employee" employed in the capacities its Schedule II lists. So the same person may be a worker under one Act and not a workman under another.
Part B: workman and independent contractor
Why the line matters. A workman can raise disputes, claim lay-off and retrenchment compensation, and challenge his dismissal. An independent contractor has only his contract. Employers sometimes describe workers as "contractors" to escape the labour laws, so the courts look at the substance.
Two kinds of contract.
- A contract of service is a contract of employment. The worker places his labour at the employer's disposal, and the employer directs it.
- A contract for service is a contract to produce a result. The contractor runs his own work, and answers only for the result.
The tests the courts use
1. The control test.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264. Agarias made salt on plots of the company's leased land, seasonally, with their families, paid by the maund. They kept no fixed hours, and could engage extra hands. The company called them independent contractors. The Supreme Court held them workmen. The prima facie test is the employer's right "not merely to direct what work is to be done but also to control the manner in which it is to be done". The degree of control varies with the industry. Whether the relationship exists is a question of fact for the Tribunal.
The right to control matters more than its actual exercise. A skilled worker who is rarely supervised may still be a workman. So the agarias' freedom over their hours did not make them contractors. The company could still direct how salt was made on its land.
2. Looking behind the contractor: economic control.
Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, (1978) 4 SCC 257. Rope makers worked inside the owner's factory, with his raw material and equipment, but were engaged through contractors. When twenty-nine were denied work, the owner said they were the contractors' men. The Supreme Court rejected this. Where workers produce goods or services for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has "economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment". On "lifting the veil", the real employer was "the Management, not the immediate contractor".
3. Sham contracts.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1. The Supreme Court held that abolishing contract labour does not automatically make the workers the principal employer's employees. But where the contract with the contractor is a sham, the workers were the principal employer's employees all along. That is a question of fact for the industrial tribunal.
Three examples
- A machine operator works fixed shifts in a factory, on its machines, under a foreman. He is a workman.
- A carpenter agrees to make office furniture for a fixed price, with his own tools, at his own workshop, hiring his own helpers. He is an independent contractor.
- Loaders supplied by a labour agent work every day in a company's warehouse, under its supervisors, on its goods. If the agent is a mere name on paper, they are the company's workmen, as Hussainbhai shows. If the agent is a genuine contractor, they are his workmen, with protection under the Contract Labour Act.
Workman and independent contractor compared
| Point | Workman | Independent contractor |
|---|---|---|
| Contract | of service | for service |
| Who directs the method | employer | contractor himself |
| Payment | wages or piece rates for labour | price for a result |
| Materials and premises | usually the employer's | usually his own |
| Profit and loss | not his | his |
| Labour law protection | yes | no |
| Key cases | Dharangadhara; Hussainbhai | Dharangadhara (test applied) |
Where the law stands now
The Industrial Relations Code 2020, in force from 21 November 2025, uses the word "worker" (section 2(zr)). It keeps the same kinds of work, "for hire or reward", and the same four exclusions. It raises the supervisory wage limit to eighteen thousand rupees a month. Apprentices under the Apprentices Act 1961 are now left out. Working journalists and sales promotion employees are now expressly included, so sales staff like those in Adyanthaya are covered by the definition itself.
Conclusion. A workman is a person employed in an industry, for hire or reward, to do manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The armed forces, police and prison staff, managers and well-paid supervisors are excluded, and the work must be of a listed kind, as Adyanthaya holds. He differs from an independent contractor because he serves under the employer's control, as Dharangadhara Chemical Works holds. The courts look past contractors who are mere fronts to the one with economic control, as Hussainbhai shows. A sham contract does not hide the real employer, as Steel Authority of India holds.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.