Question

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A). Assertion (A): The respondent was engaged as a Safai Karamchari in a charitable trust. The dispute originated when he was terminated due to repeated absence from duty. The trust challenged the award on the grounds that it was not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the worker was not a workman, making Section 25-F inapplicable. Reason (R): The trust engaged in multifarious activities including commercial ventures and hired employees for commercial and charitable activities in an organized manner with proper remuneration. In the context of the above Assertion and Reason under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is correct?

• A. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• B. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
• C. Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• D. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

Hint:

Bangalore Water Supply Case: If an activity is organized, systematic, and uses paid labor, it is an "industry"—even if it's a charity!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The definition of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act (following the Bangalore Water Supply case) includes institutions that systematically carry out organized activities, even if they have charitable objectives.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Assertion (A) is true: This describes a typical legal challenge where a charitable employer argues it is not an "industry" to escape employment regulations.
- Reason (R) is true: The systematic engagement in commercial/charitable activities using organized labor and remuneration meets the "Triple Test" (Bangalore Water Supply) for an industry.
- (R) is the correct explanation: Because the trust engaged in organized activities (as described in R), it is an industry under Section 2(j), which defeats the trust's argument in (A).

Step 3: Final Answer:
Both are true, and (R) explains why the trust's challenge in (A) would fail. Option (C) is correct.

Answer 2

This question tests whether the four composite claims about the Assertion (A) and Reason (R) correctly capture the settled position on what counts as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Begin from the governing rule itself - the Triple Test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa - and apply it directly to each option.

1. Option (A): This claims (A) is false but (R) is true. (A) merely narrates the dispute - that the trust resisted the award by denying it is an "industry" - which is an accurate description of a real and commonly litigated defence under the Act. Since (A) correctly states the trust's position, calling it false is incorrect, so this option fails.
2. Option (B): This claims (A) is true but (R) is false. (R) describes the trust running multifarious activities, including commercial ventures, with organised, paid staff. Under the Triple Test, systematic activity carried on with employer-employee cooperation to produce goods or services qualifies as an industry regardless of a charitable label, so the facts in (R) are entirely consistent with settled law and cannot be dismissed as false. This option therefore fails on the second limb.
3. Option (C): This claims both (A) and (R) are true and that (R) correctly explains (A). Applying the Triple Test to the facts in (R) - organised commercial and charitable operations, paid employees, systematic functioning - shows exactly why an entity in the trust's position would be treated as an "industry" despite its charitable character. That is the very reason the trust's defence described in (A) would be rejected. The reasoning chain holds together: (R) is not just true in isolation, it is the operative justification for why (A)'s described challenge fails.
4. Option (D): This claims both are true but that (R) does not explain (A). Since the Triple Test facts in (R) are precisely what causes the trust's "not an industry" defence in (A) to fail, there is a direct causal and explanatory link between the two - so saying (R) does not explain (A) understates the relationship and is incorrect.

Working forward from the statutory test to the facts eliminates three of the four composite claims and confirms that (R) is both true and the true explanation for how the situation in (A) resolves under Section 2(j).

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).