05-1 Labour Law - I
05-1 Labour Law - I
VISAKHAPATNAM
______________________________________________________________________________
SEMESTER V Mid – Semester Examinations, September - 2022
Labour Law- I (05-1)
Instructions:
1. Answer all the THREE questions
2. Answer to question No.1 and No.2 is compulsory
3. Any over writing in answering question number one will be treated as invalidate answer
4. Answer any one in question No.3
5. Do not write anything on the question paper. It will be treated as malpractice.
Total Marks - 25
Time: 1½ Hour
10 x 1/2 = 5marks
1. i) When did The Trade Unions Act, come into force?
A) 01 April 1927
B) 01 March 1926
C) 01 May 1929
D) 01 June, 1927
iv) Which one of the following is not a fundamental right under the provisions of the constitution of
India?
v) In which of the following states there exists a legislation having a provision for recognition
of Trade Unions?
A) Tamil Nadu
B) Karnataka
C) Maharashtra
D) Bihar
P.T.O
1| Page
vi) Assertion (A): Some of the earliest piece of Labour Legislation in India appear to have been
enacted to protect the interest of the employers.
Reason (R): The policy of the Government was to protect the social system rather than to protect
workers.
Code:
A) Assertion (A) is correct and Reason (R) is wrong.
B) Assertion (A) is correct and Reason (R) explains Assertion (A).
C) Assertion (A) is wrong and Reason (R) is right.
D) Assertion (A) is correct and Reason (R) does not explain Assertion (A).
vii) Assertion (A): With the evolution of industrial and employment relations in the face of rapid
changes and significant advances in technology among other things, collective bargaining
became an instrument of social change.
Reason (R): Shifts in the labour and product markets created pressures as well as opportunities
for a new approach.
Code:
A) Assertion (A) is wrong and Reason (R) is correct.
B) Assertion (A) is correct and Reason (R) is a proper explanation of Assertion (A).
C) Assertion (A) is correct but Reason (R) is wrong.
D) Reason (R) is not an explanation of Assertion (A).
viii) In the movie ‘Norma Rae’, why did Norma Rae take the job of "spot checker" in the first
place?
A) because of the pay raise to support her kids
B) because she wanted to have a higher up job than others
C) because she wanted to feel superior to others
D) because she liked doing checklists instead of sweating in the work room
ix) In the movie ‘Norma Rae’, Why is Norma Rae fired and thrown in jail?
A) because she is trying to show that the mill owners are trying to intimidate workers from
joining the union
B) because she didn't want the "spot checker" job
C) because she is fighting for her Dad’s death compensation
D) because she has been "seeing" too many different men, resulting in a bad reputation for
her and the company
x) Arrange the following steps of disciplinary procedure in the order in which they are used:
a) Dismissal and discharge
b) Show-cause notice
c) Domestic enquiry
d) Serving of charge sheet
e) Submission of the report
Codes:
A) b, d, c, e, a
B) b, e, c, d, a
C) c, d, b, e, a
D) d, b, c, e, a
2| Page
2. M/s. Tillu Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jathirathnalu Workers Union
In the city of Vizag, there is an industry, M/s. Tillu Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred
as Employer), engaged in the manufacturing of petroleum products including liquid
petroleum products (LPG). Two hundred workmen of the employer formed a Trade Union
under the banner “Jathirathnalu Workers Union” (hereinafter referred as Union). The Union
participated in illegal strike in contemplation and furtherance of a trade dispute, resulting the
employer in heavy losses. During the protest, one of the members of the Union caused
damages to the properties. The management filed cases for both damages and prosecution of
the Union for causing heavy losses to the employer by going on illegal strike and causing
damages to the properties of the employer during protest. Explain the liability of the Union
with relevant legal provisions and case laws.
10Marks
i) Analyze the Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh ((2004)7SCC574) case law
3| Page