KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
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 2016 Dec examination.
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec 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 · 13 questions answered
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.
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the meaning of "industry" decides the reach of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947; the words of section 2(j) and its employer limb and workmen limb; the meaning traced through four phases of decided cases: the wide working principle (Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960); the narrowing (University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, 1963; Safdarjung Hospital, 1970); the settlement (Bangalore Water Supply, 1978: triple test, dominant nature test, the narrow exceptions, cases overruled); the doubt and its answer (the 1982 amendment never brought into force; Jai Bir Singh, 2005 reference and 2026 decision); sovereign functions (Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Officers' Union); a table of activities; the Industrial Relations Code 2020; a conclusion.
Every right under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 depends on an "industry". An "industrial dispute" must arise in one, a "workman" must be employed in one, and lay-off, retrenchment and closure compensation are paid only there. So if an employer's activity is not an industry, its employees are outside the whole Act. That is why the definition has been argued over for seventy years.
"Industry" means "any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen".
The words are among the widest in the statute book. The courts' task has been to find their limits.
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610. Ward servants of the J.J. Group of Hospitals, run by the State of Bombay, were retrenched without compensation. The State argued that a Government hospital could not be an industry. The Supreme Court disagreed. "Industry" is of wide import, and the rule of reading words by their neighbours (noscitur a sociis) does not narrow it. A profit motive and invested capital are not essential. Regal or sovereign functions are outside, but welfare activities are not. The working principle is an activity "systematically and habitually undertaken" to produce or distribute goods or render material services, with employees organised as in a trade or business. On that test the hospitals were an industry.
The Court then drew the line much tighter.
University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 SC 1873. Two drivers of buses run by Miranda House, a college of the University, were discharged when the loss-making service stopped. They claimed retrenchment compensation. The Supreme Court held that the University's educational work was not an industry. Teachers, who do the real work, are not workmen, and the drivers' role was "minor, subsidiary and insignificant". "Education in its true aspect is more a mission and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business".
Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi, AIR 1970 SC 1407. A clerk of the Government's Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi claimed arrears on a revised pay scale. A Bench of six Judges held that neither this hospital nor two others heard with it were industries. An industry must be an economic activity analogous to trade or business. A hospital could be an industry only if run "as a business in a commercial way". Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, it said, "took an extreme view".
Bangalore Water-Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548. The Board, a statutory body supplying water and sewerage services in Bangalore, punished some employees. It argued that it was not an industry. Because the Court's earlier decisions could not be reconciled, a Bench of seven Judges heard the case. It held the Board an industry and laid down these propositions.
The Court overruled Safdarjung Hospital, University of Delhi and several cases on clubs and professions, and approved Hospital Mazdoor Sabha.
Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Government Officers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962 Mad 234. An association open to the State's non-gazetted officers sought registration as a trade union, and was refused. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the refusal. The core civil service performs the inalienable and regal functions of government, which are not an industry. Government corporations and undertakings of an industrial kind stand on a different footing. Bangalore Water Supply kept this exception, but read it strictly.
Parliament tried to narrow the definition by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1982. Its new section 2(j) adopted the triple test with express exclusions. Among them were hospitals, educational and research institutions, charities, sovereign functions, domestic service, and small professions and clubs. It was never brought into force.
State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 1. The question was whether a State's social forestry department was an industry. A five-Judge Bench noted that Bangalore Water Supply had made almost every organised activity an industry, and that the 1982 amendment lay dormant. It referred Bangalore Water Supply to a larger Bench for reconsideration. A nine-Judge Bench answered on 20 August 2026 (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1684). The Judges wrote several opinions. The Chief Justice's lead opinion refined the test, requiring goods or services of "a discernible commercial character", but only for the future. The Court was clear that disputes still pending under the 1947 Act are decided by the Bangalore Water Supply test.
The wide reading protects workers wherever they are organised to produce goods or services, whoever employs them. That was its purpose, and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Bangalore Water Supply both rest on it. Its cost is that charities, research bodies and Government welfare schemes carry the full weight of the Act, including retrenchment rules and adjudication. Parliament twice tried to answer that. In 1982 it passed an amendment it never brought into force, and in 2020 it wrote express exclusions into the Code. The Supreme Court's 2026 refinement points the same way, but only for the future.
| Activity | Industry? | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Government hospital | yes | Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, approved in Bangalore Water Supply |
| University or college | yes for the Act; teachers are not workmen | Bangalore Water Supply, overruling University of Delhi |
| Water and sewerage board | yes | Bangalore Water Supply |
| Club, profession or research body with employees | yes, if the triple test is met | Bangalore Water Supply |
| Core civil service, sovereign functions | no | Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Officers' Union |
| Small charity run by volunteers | no | Bangalore Water Supply |
The 1947 Act was repealed on 21 November 2025 by section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code 2020. Section 2(p) of the Code writes the triple test into the statute. Capital and profit are irrelevant, and workers engaged through contractors are covered. It expressly excludes four things. The first is an institution owned or managed by an organisation wholly or substantially engaged in charitable, social or philanthropic service. The others are sovereign functions of Government, including defence research, atomic energy and space; domestic service; and any activity the Central Government notifies. The 2026 ruling says it is not an aid to reading the Code.
Conclusion. "Industry" under section 2(j) began with a wide working principle in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha. It was narrowed in University of Delhi and Safdarjung Hospital, and settled in Bangalore Water Supply. That case's triple test brings in almost every organised activity producing goods or services, except sovereign functions and small voluntary charities. Jai Bir Singh questioned it, but the 2026 decision left it to govern every pending dispute. The Code now writes the triple test into law with express exclusions.
The rest of the answers
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.