Comprehension
Read the excerpts from an opinion piece entitled "Labour Law Suspension: Hit The Workers When They Are Down" by Pranab Bardhan, Professor of Graduate School at the Department of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, published by Bloomberg Quint and answer the questions below:
It is interesting that while Indian states are trying to suspend labour protection and make it easier for employers to sack workers, many other countries are trying to minimise lay-offs in this period of crisis by giving wage subsidy to employers to induce them to keep the workers on the payroll. These programs are an effort to reduce displacement, distress, and loss of worker morale, and at the time of economic recovery less friction and de-skilling. The wage subsidies are quite substantial in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is also being attempted in some developing countries like Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey.
In the continuing sordid saga of callousness and brutality with the millions of suddenly unemployed migrant workers over the last six weeks since lockdown, an interesting fact to note is that employers who mostly had stopped paying them over this period, thus causing widespread hunger and homelessness, have lobbied with state governments to stop sending them back to their villages so that they remain available when the industries restart. I am actually in favour of a thorough overhaul. The current labour laws, tangled and outdated as they are, serve the long-term interests of neither the employers nor the workers. At the beginning of this century, the Second National Commission of Labour made a whole set of sensible recommendations for such an overhaul, but they remain largely unimplemented. I would support abolishing the firm size limit on labour retrenchment altogether, provided there is a provision for adequate unemployment benefits, both for regular and contract workers, and there is something like a state-provided universal basic income supplement as a fall-back option for everybody. "Allowing more flexibility in hiring and firing has to be combined, as part of a package deal, with a reasonable scheme of unemployment compensation from an earmarked fund, to which employers and employees should both regularly contribute." For far too long businesses in India, with some notable exceptions, have considered labour as a necessary but troublesome cog in the production machine, and the focus is to squeeze the maximum out of it with minimum pay and benefits while brandishing the threat of job insecurity. Organised labour, often under politicised partisan leadership from outside, has played that adversarial game. It is in the long-term interests of both sides to see at the ground level that labour-friendly practices can actually enhance long- term productivity and profitability. If cooperation can replace mutual suspicion and labour representatives can be trusted to participate in corporate governance as is the practice, say, in Germany and a few other European countries labour organisations can play a responsible role in achieving mutually beneficial goals. Taking the cover of the pandemic to unilaterally whittle down labour protections is going the opposite way, to distrust, and labour unrest.
It is interesting that while Indian states are trying to suspend labour protection and make it easier for employers to sack workers, many other countries are trying to minimise lay-offs in this period of crisis by giving wage subsidy to employers to induce them to keep the workers on the payroll. These programs are an effort to reduce displacement, distress, and loss of worker morale, and at the time of economic recovery less friction and de-skilling. The wage subsidies are quite substantial in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is also being attempted in some developing countries like Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey.
In the continuing sordid saga of callousness and brutality with the millions of suddenly unemployed migrant workers over the last six weeks since lockdown, an interesting fact to note is that employers who mostly had stopped paying them over this period, thus causing widespread hunger and homelessness, have lobbied with state governments to stop sending them back to their villages so that they remain available when the industries restart. I am actually in favour of a thorough overhaul. The current labour laws, tangled and outdated as they are, serve the long-term interests of neither the employers nor the workers. At the beginning of this century, the Second National Commission of Labour made a whole set of sensible recommendations for such an overhaul, but they remain largely unimplemented. I would support abolishing the firm size limit on labour retrenchment altogether, provided there is a provision for adequate unemployment benefits, both for regular and contract workers, and there is something like a state-provided universal basic income supplement as a fall-back option for everybody. "Allowing more flexibility in hiring and firing has to be combined, as part of a package deal, with a reasonable scheme of unemployment compensation from an earmarked fund, to which employers and employees should both regularly contribute." For far too long businesses in India, with some notable exceptions, have considered labour as a necessary but troublesome cog in the production machine, and the focus is to squeeze the maximum out of it with minimum pay and benefits while brandishing the threat of job insecurity. Organised labour, often under politicised partisan leadership from outside, has played that adversarial game. It is in the long-term interests of both sides to see at the ground level that labour-friendly practices can actually enhance long- term productivity and profitability. If cooperation can replace mutual suspicion and labour representatives can be trusted to participate in corporate governance as is the practice, say, in Germany and a few other European countries labour organisations can play a responsible role in achieving mutually beneficial goals. Taking the cover of the pandemic to unilaterally whittle down labour protections is going the opposite way, to distrust, and labour unrest.
Question: 1
The Government of Uttar Pradesh and many other state governments promulgatedOrdinances for Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws that would suspend theoperation of all labour laws applicable to factories and manufacturing establishments in their respective state for a period of three years, with the exception of
The Government of Uttar Pradesh and many other state governments promulgatedOrdinances for Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws that would suspend theoperation of all labour laws applicable to factories and manufacturing establishments in their respective state for a period of three years, with the exception of
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
- Employees‘ Compensation Act, 1923,
- The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996
- All the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (D):All the above
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which enactments were expressly carved out as exceptions when Uttar Pradesh and other states suspended labour laws for a three-year period during the pandemic.
- Option (A): The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976 addresses the fundamental prohibition of bonded and forced labour, a protection so basic that it was kept outside the suspension. On its own, this option correctly identifies one of the exempted statutes but does not capture the full list of exceptions the ordinance carved out.
- Option (B): The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 provides compensation to workers for injuries suffered in the course of employment, a protection the state governments also chose not to suspend. Again, this is correct as far as it goes, but it names only one of several exempted laws.
- Option (C): The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 secures welfare conditions for construction workers, a particularly vulnerable category, and this too was retained in force rather than suspended. As with the other options, it is accurate but only partial.
- Option (D): Since the ordinances retained each of the three statutes listed above as exceptions to the general suspension of labour laws, none of the earlier options alone captures the complete picture, and combining all three gives the accurate account of what was exempted.
Because the exemption covered all three named statutes together, and not just one of them, the complete and accurate answer is that all of them were excepted from suspension.
Hence, the correct answer is (D) All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
On which of the following areas, Central Government is exclusively competent to enact legislations?
On which of the following areas, Central Government is exclusively competent to enact legislations?
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Trade unions; industrial and labour disputes
- Social security and social insurance; employment and unemployment
- Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers‘ liability, workmen‘s compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits.
- Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (D): Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which labour-related subject falls exclusively within the Union Government's legislative competence, as distinguished from subjects on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate.
- Option (A): Trade unions and industrial and labour disputes are listed in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, meaning both Parliament and the State Legislatures can make laws on this subject. It is therefore not an area of exclusive central competence.
- Option (B): Social security, social insurance, employment and unemployment are likewise Concurrent List subjects, open to legislation by both levels of government, so this too fails the test of exclusivity.
- Option (C): Welfare of labour, including conditions of work, provident funds, employer's liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity and old-age pensions and maternity benefits, is also placed in the Concurrent List, meaning states can legislate here as well, subject to repugnancy rules. This is not exclusive central territory.
- Option (D): Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields is placed in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule, which means only Parliament, not the State Legislatures, can legislate on it. This is the one genuinely exclusive subject among the four options.
Since options (A), (B) and (C) are Concurrent List entries open to both Parliament and the States, only option (D) describes a subject reserved exclusively for the Union.
Hence, the correct answer is (D) Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following laws has been enacted to prevent exploitation of inter-state migrant workers and, to ensure fair and decent conditions of employment for them?
Which of the following laws has been enacted to prevent exploitation of inter-state migrant workers and, to ensure fair and decent conditions of employment for them?
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 197
- Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
- Migrant Workers (Protection) Act, 1979
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (A):The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which statute was enacted specifically to prevent the exploitation of workers who migrate from one state to another for work and to secure fair conditions of employment for them.
- Option (A): The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 was enacted precisely for this purpose, it regulates the employment of workmen recruited in one state for employment in an establishment situated in another state, requires registration of principal employers and licensing of contractors, and mandates displacement and journey allowances along with equal wages, directly targeting the exploitation such migrant workers historically faced.
- Option (B): The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 regulates the employment of contract labour generally and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances, but it is not specifically tailored to the inter-state migration aspect of a worker's employment.
- Option (C): The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976 targets a distinct evil, the bonded or forced labour system arising from debt, and has nothing to do with regulating inter-state recruitment and migration of workers.
- Option (D): There is no statute titled the "Migrant Workers (Protection) Act, 1979"; this option does not correspond to an actual enactment and appears designed as a plausible-sounding distractor.
Only the statute named in option (A) is directly and specifically aimed at regulating inter-state migrant employment and preventing the exploitation associated with it.
Hence, the correct answer is (A) The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948 protects the interest of workers in contingencies such as —
I. Sickness
II. Maternity,
III. Temporary or permanent physical disablement,
IV. Death due to employment injury resulting in loss of wages or earning capacity.
Select the correct answer from the codes given bellow:
The Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948 protects the interest of workers in contingencies such as —
I. Sickness
II. Maternity,
III. Temporary or permanent physical disablement,
IV. Death due to employment injury resulting in loss of wages or earning capacity.
Select the correct answer from the codes given bellow:
I. Sickness
II. Maternity,
III. Temporary or permanent physical disablement,
IV. Death due to employment injury resulting in loss of wages or earning capacity.
Select the correct answer from the codes given bellow:
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- I only
- II only
- I, III and IV
- I, II, III and IV
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (D):I, II, III and IV
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the listed contingencies are covered by the protections the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 provides to workers.
- Option (A): Restricting the answer to sickness alone ignores that the ESI Act's scheme of cash and medical benefits extends well beyond sickness to cover several other contingencies listed in the question.
- Option (B): Restricting the answer to maternity alone is equally incomplete, maternity benefit is only one strand of the wider protective scheme the Act establishes.
- Option (C): Selecting sickness, disablement and death due to employment injury while leaving out maternity is inaccurate, because maternity benefit is expressly one of the benefits the Act provides to insured women employees.
- Option (D): The ESI Act's benefit structure covers sickness benefit, maternity benefit, disablement benefit for both temporary and permanent physical disablement, and dependents' benefit where death results from an employment injury causing loss of wages or earning capacity. All four contingencies listed in the question, sickness, maternity, disablement and employment-injury death, fall within the Act's protective umbrella.
Since the Act's benefit scheme spans all four listed contingencies rather than any single one or a partial combination, the complete answer must include all of them together.
Hence, the correct answer is (D) I, II, III and IV.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
As per the provisions contained in Chapter VB of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 establishment employing _____________ persons or more are required to seek prior permission of Appropriate Government before effecting lay-off, retrenchment and closure.
As per the provisions contained in Chapter VB of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 establishment employing _____________ persons or more are required to seek prior permission of Appropriate Government before effecting lay-off, retrenchment and closure.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- 50
- 100
- 250
- 500
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (B):100
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks the minimum number of workmen an establishment must employ before Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires prior government permission for lay-off, retrenchment or closure.
- Option (A): Fifty workmen is the threshold under the ordinary provisions dealing with lay-off and retrenchment compensation for smaller establishments, but it is not the figure that triggers the special, more stringent requirement of prior government permission found in Chapter VB.
- Option (B): Chapter VB, comprising Sections 25K to 25S, applies to industrial establishments that are factories, mines or plantations employing not less than one hundred workmen on average per working day in the preceding twelve months. Establishments crossing this hundred-worker threshold must obtain the prior permission of the appropriate government before effecting lay-off, retrenchment or closure.
- Option (C): Two hundred and fifty is not the statutory figure fixed under the parent Central Act; some states did raise this threshold through state amendments, but the baseline figure under Chapter VB as originally enacted is not this number.
- Option (D): Five hundred is even further from the statutory baseline and does not correspond to the threshold Chapter VB actually prescribes.
The number that Chapter VB fixes for triggering the prior-permission requirement is one hundred workmen.
Hence, the correct answer is (B) 100.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
First come last go and last come first go‟ is the principle of:
First come last go and last come first go‟ is the principle of:
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Lay-off
- Closure
- Retrenchment
- Dismissal
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (C):Retrenchment
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which labour law concept is described by the maxim "first come last go and last come first go."
- Option (A): Lay-off refers to an employer's temporary inability to give employment due to reasons such as shortage of raw material or breakdown of machinery; it is not governed by a seniority-based selection principle of this kind, since the whole workforce, or a defined section, is affected together rather than selected in order of seniority.
- Option (B): Closure refers to the permanent shutting down of an establishment altogether, which affects the entire workforce simultaneously and has nothing to do with choosing which individual workers to let go first based on their length of service.
- Option (C): Retrenchment is the termination of a workman's service for reasons other than punishment, and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically requires that, in the absence of any agreement, the employer ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last one employed in that category first, that is precisely the seniority rule captured by "last come first go," with the necessary corollary that the worker who came first goes last.
- Option (D): Dismissal is a punitive termination for misconduct, decided on the facts of individual conduct, and does not follow any general seniority-based sequencing rule of this sort.
Only retrenchment operates on this specific seniority principle mandated by law, making the workman with the shortest length of service in the category the one selected first.
Hence, the correct answer is (C) Retrenchment.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 7
Which of the following is an illegal industrial action as per law?
Which of the following is an illegal industrial action as per law?
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Mutual Insurance
- Collective Bargaining
- Lock out
- Gherao
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (D):Gherao
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the listed industrial actions is regarded as illegal under labour law.
- Option (A): Mutual insurance describes cooperative arrangements among workers or employers for shared protection and support, a lawful and recognised form of collective self-help that does not involve coercion of the other side.
- Option (B): Collective bargaining is the legally recognised process through which employers and workmen negotiate terms of employment through their representatives, and it is actively encouraged, not prohibited, by industrial legislation.
- Option (C): A lock-out is a weapon available to employers, the closing of a place of employment or refusal to continue employing workmen, and while it is regulated and can attract restrictions in certain circumstances, it is a recognised, lawful industrial action when exercised within the statutory framework, not an inherently illegal one.
- Option (D): Gherao involves physically surrounding and confining persons, such as managers, to coerce compliance with demands, and courts have consistently held this to be an illegal and often criminal form of industrial action because it involves wrongful restraint and coercion rather than a legitimate exercise of collective rights.
Among the four, only gherao amounts to an inherently illegal industrial action because of the physical coercion and restraint it involves.
Hence, the correct answer is (D) Gherao.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 8
Choose the correct objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Choose the correct objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- To prevent illegal strikes
- To promote measures for securing and preserving good relations between the employers and the employees
- To provide relief to workmen in matters of lay - off,retrenchment, wrongful dismissals
- All of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (D):All of the above
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the listed goals correctly states the objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Option (A): Preventing illegal strikes is indeed one purpose served by the Act's machinery for settling disputes, but the Act's objectives extend well beyond this single aim, so picking only this understates its full scope.
- Option (B): Promoting measures for securing and preserving good relations between employers and employees is likewise a genuine objective of the Act, achieved through mechanisms such as conciliation, works committees and adjudication, but again this is only one strand of the Act's broader purpose.
- Option (C): Providing relief to workmen in matters of lay-off, retrenchment and wrongful dismissal is also a real and important objective, reflected in the Act's substantive provisions on compensation and procedure for these very situations, yet this too is only part of the picture.
- Option (D): The Preamble and scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 show that it was enacted to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and, in doing so, it serves multiple connected purposes at once, preventing illegal strikes and lock-outs, promoting good relations between employers and employees, and providing relief to workmen in lay-off, retrenchment and wrongful dismissal situations. These are not competing objectives but complementary facets of the same statutory scheme.
Since each of the first three options names a genuine objective of the Act but only a partial one, the complete and accurate description requires combining all three.
Hence, the correct answer is (D) All of the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 9
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applies to every establishment/ contractor in which ____________ workmen are employed or were employed on any day ofthe preceding twelve months as contract labour.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applies to every establishment/ contractor in which ____________ workmen are employed or were employed on any day ofthe preceding twelve months as contract labour.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Ten or more
- Fifteen
- Twenty or more
- Twenty-five or more
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (C):Twenty or more
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks the minimum number of contract workmen that triggers the application of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to an establishment or contractor.
- Option (A): Ten or more is not the figure fixed by the Act for its general applicability to establishments and contractors; this lower number does not match the statutory threshold.
- Option (B): Fifteen is likewise not the number specified in the Act; it does not correspond to the actual statutory language on applicability.
- Option (C): Section 1(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applies the Act to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, as contract labour, and an identical threshold applies to contractors who employ or employed twenty or more such workmen. This matches the statutory figure precisely.
- Option (D): Twenty-five or more overstates the threshold; the Act's applicability provision uses twenty, not twenty-five, as the qualifying number.
The statutory language fixes the applicability threshold at twenty workmen, matching option (C) exactly.
Hence, the correct answer is (C) Twenty or more.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 10
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 shall not apply to establishments in which work is of:
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 shall not apply to establishments in which work is of:
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- An intermittent or casual nature
- In nature of Permanent work
- Both (a) and b)
- None of the above.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Option is (A):An intermittent or casual nature
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks for the type of work in respect of which the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not apply.
- Option (A): Section 1(5) of the Act specifically excludes establishments where the work performed is of an intermittent or casual nature, since the Act's protective and licensing machinery is designed for more settled and ongoing engagements of contract labour, not sporadic or occasional work. This is the express statutory exclusion.
- Option (B): Work of a permanent nature is, if anything, the kind of engagement the Act is most concerned with regulating, since permanent or regular contract labour engagements are precisely where the risk of exploitation the Act addresses tends to arise; the exclusion does not extend to permanent work.
- Option (C): Because permanent-nature work is not excluded, an option combining both intermittent and permanent work as jointly excluded cannot be correct, since only the intermittent or casual category is carved out.
- Option (D): Since intermittent or casual work is indeed excluded under Section 1(5), saying that none of the listed categories is excluded is incorrect.
The statute's own exclusion clause names only intermittent or casual work, not permanent work, as falling outside the Act's application.
Hence, the correct answer is (A) An intermittent or casual nature.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT PG Questions
- Our society is governed by the Constitution. The values of constitutional morality are a non-derogable entitlement. Notions of “purity and pollution”, which stigmatise individuals, can have no place in a constitutional regime. Regarding menstruation as polluting or impure, and worse still, imposing exclusionary disabilities on the basis of menstrual status, is against the dignity of women which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Practices which legitimise menstrual taboos, due to notions of “purity and pollution”, limit the ability of menstruating women to attain the freedom of movement, the right to education and the right of entry to places of worship and, eventually, their access to the public sphere. Women have a right to control their own bodies. The menstrual status of a woman is an attribute of her privacy and person. Women have a constitutional entitlement that their biological processes must be free from social and religious practices, which enforce segregation and exclusion. These practices result in humiliation and a violation of dignity. Article 17 prohibits the practice of “untouchability”, which is based on notions of purity and impurity, “in any form”. Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability practices in relation to lower castes, but it will also apply to the systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women. Prejudice against women based on notions of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation is a symbol of exclusion. The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status, is but a form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values. As an expression of the anti-exclusion principle, Article 17 cannot be read to exclude women against whom social exclusion of the worst kind has been practised and legitimised on notions of purity and pollution. Article 17 cannot be read in a restricted manner. But even if Article 17 were to be read to reflect a particular form of untouchability, that Article will not exhaust the guarantee against other forms of social exclusion. The guarantee against social exclusion would emanate from other provisions of Part III, including Articles 15(2) and 21. Exclusion of women between the age group of ten and fifty, based on their menstrual status, from entering the temple in Sabarimala can have no place in a constitutional order founded on liberty and dignity.
[Extracted from Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (hereafter IYLA)] - An Ordinance which is promulgated by the Governor has (as clause 2 of Article 213 provides) the same force and effect as an Act of the legislature of the State assented to by the Governor. However - and this is a matter of crucial importance – clause 2 goes on to stipulate in the same vein significant constitutional conditions. These conditions have to be fulfilled before the ‘force and effect’ fiction comes into being. These conditions are prefaced by the expression “but every such Ordinance” which means that the constitutional fiction is subject to what is stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Sub-clause (a) provides that the Ordinance “shall be laid before the legislative assembly of the state” or before both the Houses in the case of a bi-cameral legislature. Is the requirement of laying an Ordinance before the state legislature mandatory? There can be no manner of doubt that it is. The expression “shall be laid” is a positive mandate which brooks no exceptions. That the word ‘shall’ in sub-clause (a) of clause 2 of Article 213 is mandatory, emerges from reading the provision in its entirety. As we have noted earlier, an Ordinance can be promulgated only when the legislature is not in session. Upon the completion of six weeks of the reassembling of the legislature, an Ordinance “shall cease to operate”.
Article 213(2)(a) postulates that an ordinance would cease to operate upon the expiry of a period of six weeks of the reassembly of the legislature. The Oxford English dictionary defines the expression “cease” as : “to stop, give over, discontinue, desist; to come to the end.” P Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Major Law Lexicon defines the expression “cease” to mean “discontinue or put an end to”. Justice C K Thakker’s Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon defines the word “cease” as meaning: “to put an end to; to stop, to terminate or to discontinue”. The expression has been defined in similar terms in Black’s Law Dictionary.
The expression “cease to operate” in Article 213(2)(a) is attracted in two situations. The first is where a period of six weeks has expired since the reassembling of the legislature. The second situation is where a resolution has been passed by the legislature disapproving of an ordinance. Apart from these two situations that are contemplated by sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) contemplates that an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor. Upon its withdrawal the ordinance would cease to operate as well.
[Extracts from the judgment of majority judgment in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1994, decided on January 2, 2017 hereafter ‘KK Singh’] - The other material which prompted the High Court to reach the conclusion that the subsoil/minerals vest in the State is … recitals of a patta which ….. states that if minerals are found in the property covered by the patta and if the pattadar exploits those minerals, the pattadar is liable for a separate tax in addition to the tax shown in the patta and …. certain standing orders of the Collector of Malabar which provided for collection of seigniorage fee in the event of the mining operation being carried on. We are of the clear opinion that the recitals in the patta or the Collector’s standing order that the exploitation of mineral wealth in the patta land would attract additional tax, in our opinion, cannot in any way indicate the ownership of the State in the minerals. The power to tax is a necessary incident of sovereign authority (imperium) but not an incident of proprietary rights (dominium). Proprietary right is a compendium of rights consisting of various constituent, rights. If a person has only a share in the produce of some property, it can never be said that such property vests in such a person. In the instant case, the State asserted its ‘right’ to demand a share in the ‘produce of the minerals worked’ though the expression employed is right – it is in fact the Sovereign authority which is asserted. From the language of the BSO No.10 it is clear that such right to demand the share could be exercised only when the pattadar or somebody claiming through the pattadar, extracts/works the minerals – the authority of the State to collect money on the happening of an event – such a demand is more in the nature of an excise duty/a tax. The assertion of authority to collect a duty or tax is in the realm of the sovereign authority, but not a proprietary right….
The only other submission which we are required to deal with before we part with this matter is the argument of the learned counsel for the State that in view of the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘MMDRA’) which prohibits under Section 4 the carrying on of any mining activity in this country except in accordance with the permit, licence or mining lease as the case may be, granted under the Act, the appellants cannot claim any proprietary right in the sub-soil…
[Extract from the judgment in Thressiamma Jacob v. Dept. of Mining & Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725] (hereafter ‘T Jacob’) - A nationwide lockdown was declared by the Central Government from 24 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Economic activity came to a grinding halt. The lockdown was extended on several occasions, among them for the second time on 14 April 2020. On 17 April 2020, the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 5 of the Factories Act to exempt all factories registered under the Act “from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers” under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56. The stated aim of the notification was to provide “certain relaxations for industrial and commercial activities” from 20 April 2020 till 19 July 2020.
Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. Section 5 is extracted below: “5. Power to exempt during public emergency. — In any case of public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section ‘public emergency’ means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.” (emphasis supplied) The notification in its relevant part is extracted below:
“... NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the ‘Factories Act’ PART B Government of Gujarat hereby directs that all the factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be exempted from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. of adult workers under section 51, section 54, and section 55 and section 56 with the following conditions from 20th April till 19th July 2020, –
(1) No adult worker shall be allowed or required to work in a factory for more than twelve hours in any day and Seventy Two hours in any week.
(2) The Periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed six hours and that no worker shall work for more than six hours before he has had an interval of rest of at least half an hour.
(3) No Female workers shall be allowed or required to work in a factory between 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
(4) Wages shall be in a proportion of the existing wages (e.g. If wages for eight hours are 80 Rupees, then proportionate wages for twelve hours will be 120 Rupees).”
[Extract from judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. The State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2020, (hereafter ‘GMS’)] - In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of a FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of a FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]
View More Questions