KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2023 Sep Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Labour Law I 2023 Sep 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 2023 Sep examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2023 Sep examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2023 Sep 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and Short note/Problems is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer 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)Trade Union Enjoys immunities under civil and criminal law. Discuss.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the definition of a trade union (section 2(h)) and of a trade dispute (section 2(g)); why immunities were needed (conspiracy and restraint of trade at common law, Taff Vale); immunity from criminal conspiracy (section 17); immunity from civil suits (section 18(1) and (2)); agreements in restraint of trade (section 19); the limits, with Jay Engineering Works and Rohtas Industries; a table; the position under the Industrial Relations Code 2020; a conclusion.
What a trade union is
Section 2(h) of the Trade Unions Act 1926 defines a trade union as any combination, temporary or permanent, formed mainly to regulate certain relations. These are relations between workmen and employers, between workmen and workmen, or between employers and employers. It may also aim to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct of a trade or business. A federation of two or more unions is also a trade union.
Section 2(g) defines a trade dispute. It is a dispute between employers and workmen, workmen and workmen, or employers and employers. It must be connected with the employment or non-employment, the terms of employment or the conditions of labour of any person.
The immunities in the Act belong only to a registered union and its office-bearers and members.
Why immunities were needed
At common law a combination of workers to raise wages could be treated as a criminal conspiracy. It could also be treated as a combination in restraint of trade. A strike usually makes workers break their contracts of employment and harms the employer's business. So union leaders could be sued in tort for inducing breach of contract and for interfering with trade.
Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, [1901] AC 426. During a railway strike the union argued that it could not be sued. The House of Lords held that it could be sued and made liable in damages for the employer's losses caused by the strike. Parliament reversed the effect of this decision by the Trade Disputes Act 1906. The 1926 Indian Act followed the same path and gave registered unions statutory protection.
Immunity from criminal conspiracy: section 17
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code punished criminal conspiracy. Section 17 of the 1926 Act gives a shield. No office-bearer or member of a registered union is punishable under section 120B(2) for certain agreements. These are agreements between members to further an object of the union listed in section 15. The shield is lost if the agreement is "an agreement to commit an offence".
So an agreement among members to strike for better wages is not a criminal conspiracy. But an agreement to commit violence, wrongful confinement or mischief is not protected.
Immunity from civil suits: section 18
Section 18(1) bars any suit or legal proceeding in a civil court against a registered union, or its office-bearers or members. The bar applies to an act done "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" to which a member of the union is a party. The suit is barred if it rests only on one of these grounds.
- The act induces some other person to break a contract of employment.
- The act interferes with the trade, business or employment of some other person.
- The act interferes with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or labour as he wills.
Section 18(2) protects the union's funds from the acts of its agents. A registered union is not liable for a tortious act done by its agent in furtherance of a trade dispute. This applies if it is proved that the agent acted without the knowledge of, or contrary to express instructions given by, the executive.
Agreements in restraint of trade: section 19
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes agreements in restraint of trade void. Section 19 of the 1926 Act overrides that rule for unions. An agreement between members of a registered union is not void or voidable merely because some of its objects are in restraint of trade.
But the proviso keeps the courts out of union discipline. Some agreements decide the conditions on which members shall or shall not work, employ or be employed. No civil court will entertain a suit to enforce such an agreement or to recover damages for its breach.
The limits of the immunities: decided cases
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1968 Cal 407. Workers of the company repeatedly surrounded and confined the manager and officers in their office, once for 33 hours. A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court called this a "gherao", a physical blockade invariably involving wrongful restraint or confinement. It held that the protection in section 17 is of a limited nature. Apart from immunity from criminal conspiracy, nothing in the Act gives immunity from any criminal offence. Workers may strike peacefully, but wrongful restraint, confinement and trespass are not protected.
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, AIR 1976 SC 425. Workmen went on a strike that was illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The employer claimed compensation for its lost profits through arbitration under section 10A. The Supreme Court rejected the claim. The tort of conspiracy needs an object of injuring the employer, and here the object was rivalry between unions. The remedy for an illegal strike lies within the statute. The Court also corrected the High Court's view that section 18 gave strikers an implied immunity from all legal proceedings. Individuals who wilfully destroy plant and machinery remain liable for the damage.
The immunities at a glance
| Immunity | Section | Protects | Lost when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal conspiracy | 17 | office-bearers and members of a registered union | the agreement is to commit an offence |
| Civil suit for inducing breach or interfering with trade | 18(1) | union, office-bearers, members | act not in a trade dispute, or tort beyond the listed grounds |
| Acts of agents | 18(2) | the union's funds | the executive knew or authorised the act |
| Restraint of trade | 19 | agreements among members | a suit to enforce working conditions is barred anyway |
Where the law stands now
The Trade Unions Act 1926 was repealed on 21 November 2025 by section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code 2020. The same three immunities now sit in sections 16 (civil suits), 17 (criminal conspiracy) and 18 (restraint of trade) of the Code. The Code speaks of an "industrial dispute" instead of a "trade dispute".
Conclusion. Sections 17, 18 and 19 removed the three common law obstacles to union activity: conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and restraint of trade. They protect peaceful collective action in a trade dispute, and only for a registered union. They do not license crime, as Jay Engineering holds, and they are not a blanket bar to every legal proceeding, as Rohtas Industries makes clear.
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.