KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law II
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 6
2025 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
KSLU Solved Question Papers
Labour Law II
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 6
2025 Jun 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 2025 Jun examination.
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2025 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2025 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
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.
Unit I
Answer
For full marks, cover: the constitutional provisions for labour welfare grouped by what they secure: livelihood and work (Articles 21, 39(a), 41); fair wages and equal pay (Articles 14, 16, 39(d), 43); humane conditions and health (Articles 21, 39(e), 42); freedom from exploitation (Articles 23, 24, 39(f)); association and participation (Articles 19(1)(c), 43A); social security (Articles 41, 42); with a decided case under each: Olga Tellis, Randhir Singh, Bijay Cotton Mills, Consumer Education and Research Centre, PUDR, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, All India Bank Employees' Association, Municipal Corporation of Delhi; how the courts link Part III and Part IV; the Concurrent List (entries 22 to 24); a conclusion.
The Constitution protects labour in two ways. The Fundamental Rights in Part III can be enforced in court. The Directive Principles in Part IV cannot be enforced as such, but Article 37 makes them "fundamental in the governance of the country". The Supreme Court has read the two Parts together, so many Directive Principles on labour now work through the Fundamental Rights. Labour is also in the Concurrent List (entries 22 to 24), so both Parliament and the States make labour laws.
Articles 21, 39(a) and 41. Article 39(a) aims at an adequate means of livelihood for all. Article 41 asks the State to secure the right to work, within its economic capacity.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. Pavement dwellers in Bombay faced eviction and said they would lose their means of living. The Supreme Court held that the right to life in Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. No person can live without the means of living. Deprivation of livelihood must therefore follow a fair procedure.
Articles 14, 16, 39(d) and 43. Article 39(d) asks for equal pay for equal work for men and women. Article 43 asks for a living wage and a decent standard of life.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879. A Delhi Police driver-constable was paid less than other drivers of the Government. The Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal enforceable under Articles 14 and 16. His scale was raised.
Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 33. Employers challenged the Minimum Wages Act as an unreasonable restriction on their trade. The Supreme Court upheld it as a reasonable restriction in the public interest and in furtherance of Article 43. The employer's inability to pay was irrelevant.
Articles 21, 39(e) and 42. Article 39(e) protects the health and strength of workers. Article 42 asks for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42. Workers in asbestos industries suffered from asbestosis. The Supreme Court held that the right to health and medical aid, during service and after retirement, is a fundamental right under Article 21. It read Article 21 with Articles 39(e), 41 and 43. It directed health records, medical tests and compensation for affected workers.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274. Daily-wage women were denied maternity leave. Relying on Article 42, the Supreme Court held them entitled to the Maternity Benefit Act's benefits.
Articles 23, 24 and 39(f). Article 23 bans forced labour. Article 24 bans children below fourteen from hazardous employment. Article 39(f) protects children against exploitation.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473. Asian Games workers were paid below the minimum wage. The Supreme Court held that labour for less than the minimum wage, under economic compulsion, is forced labour under Article 23. Children employed in construction work violated Article 24.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756. Children worked in Sivakasi's match factories. The Supreme Court ordered employers to pay compensation into a rehabilitation fund for each child.
Articles 19(1)(c) and 43A. Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations and unions. Article 43A asks for workers' participation in management.
All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1962 SC 171. A bank employees' union said a law withholding banks' secret reserves from tribunals hurt its bargaining. The Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(c) protects the forming of a union. It does not guarantee that the union will achieve its objects, so the law was valid.
Articles 41 and 42. Public assistance in unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and maternity relief. These are the base of the provident fund, gratuity, insurance and maternity laws.
| Value | Articles | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Livelihood | 21, 39(a), 41 | Olga Tellis |
| Fair and equal pay | 14, 16, 39(d), 43 | Randhir Singh; Bijay Cotton Mills |
| Health and humane work | 21, 39(e), 42 | CERC; Municipal Corporation of Delhi |
| No exploitation | 23, 24, 39(f) | PUDR; M.C. Mehta |
| Unions and participation | 19(1)(c), 43A | All India Bank Employees' Association |
Conclusion. The Constitution secures labour welfare through the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(c), 21, 23 and 24. The Directive Principles in Articles 39, 41, 42, 43 and 43A add to them. The courts have joined the two. Olga Tellis and CERC read livelihood and health into Article 21. Randhir Singh enforces equal pay, and PUDR turned the minimum wage into a guard against forced labour. All India Bank Employees' Association marks the limit: the Constitution protects the union's existence, not the success of its demands.
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.