Student Id. No.

Jindal Global Law School

End-term Examination

Course Name : Labour Law 1

Course Code : L-CT-0013
Programme : BA LLB, BBA LLB, B.COM LLB -2021 Batches
Duration : 24 hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has (6) printed pages (including this page).
Instructions to students:

1. This is a take-home examination.

2. Please do not write your Name, JGU ID No. or any other identification text inside your submission document.
3. Please ensure that your submission strictly adheres to JGU plagiarism/similarity guidelines. Plagiarism in any
form is prohibited. Any violation of the Plagiarism Policy would be reported as an instance of Unfair Means
Case, and would be actioned as such.
4. Usage of AI tools is strictly prohibited. AI-generated answers would not be accepted.
5. Sharing of the answer scripts with each other is not permissible unless results are declared.
6. The submissions submitted as drafts on UMS would not be considered for evaluation. Students should make
sure that the submission submitted on UMS are properly submitted.
7. Students are expected to, to the extent possible, type their answers and submit as a PDF document and/or Excel
document, as the case may be. If any answer (or portion thereof) is not capable of being typed and submitted
as a PDF document or Excel document (including graph, flowchart, and diagram), then the students are
permitted to only attempt such portions in the ‘pen-and-paper’ mode, and upload a picture of the answer (in
PDF format) over UMS.
8. Kindly adhere to the duration/timelines of the examinations. No submission would be accepted after the
deadline.
9. Submission in contravention of the submission guidelines as mentioned in UMS User Manual for
Students, which was shared by the JGU Examinations Office on May 12, 2025, would not be accepted.
10. For any research conducted by you, it is important to cite the sources of your information and use
footnote/referencing, wherever required.
11. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to examinations.

Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means as prescribed under the
University norms and the 2025 JGLS Policy on Anti-Plagiarism and Use of Artificial Intelligence will be
penalized severely.

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 1

 • Start each question on a new page.
• Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.
• Students are required to adhere to the proposed word limits.
• Formatting must be uniform for all the answers.
• This is an Online Mode examination. Students should refer to the relevant Bare Acts/Labour Codes.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Answer any 5 of the following:

Q1: Nimbus Textiles Ltd., a company with over 500 workers, has been experiencing significant losses as a result
of rising competition and a drop in demand. As a result, management decides to close one of its operations,
resulting in retrenchment of 200 workers. The company claims to have used the "First Come, Last Go" principle
when selecting workers for retrenchment. However, several senior employees claim that the company retained
newly recruited workers while terminating more experienced ones.

The company issued a one-month prior notice to the affected workers as required under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (IDA) and provided retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. Within four months of
retrenchment, Nimbus Textiles Ltd. starts hiring new workers for the same roles, ignoring the re-employment
rights of previously retrenched workers.

Some employees also question the legality of the sudden closure of the unit, arguing that they were not given a
chance to contest the decision before it was implemented. Additionally, a group of retrenched employees who
had been working for over 240 days continuously in the past year approached the labour court, demanding
regularization of their employment before retrenchment. The management, on the other hand, argues that their
employment was purely temporary and does not qualify for regularization.

Based on the above, answer the following questions:

(a) Analyse whether Nimbus Textiles Ltd. has complied with the retrenchment and closure provisions under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA)/ Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC). Discuss the legal requirements for
issuing notice and compensation in case of retrenchment and closure. (4 Marks) (350-400 words)

(b) Explain the "First Come, Last Go" principle in the context of retrenchment under IDA/IRC. Was Nimbus
Textiles Ltd. justified in its approach? Under what circumstances can an employer deviate from this principle? (3
Marks) (250-300 words)

(c) Examine the legal implications of re-employing new workers soon after retrenchment. Do retrenched
employees have the right to be re-hired? How can the affected workers challenge this decision? (3 Marks) (250-
300 words)

Q2: Cartoon Network is a private company that produces paper and printers in Sonipat. The operations for paper
production are entirely different from those for printing. Paper production occurs in a factory called P1, while
printers are manufactured in a separate factory known as P2. The staff at both factories are also distinct.
In May 2024, management decided to cease their printer manufacturing operations. Consequently, they issued a
10-day notice of closure to the 100 workers employed in the printer production unit. Records indicate that they
had not obtained government permission to shut down prior to the issuance of the retrenchment notice.

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 2

Upon receiving this notice, the workers contested their retrenchment and the factory's closure without the
appropriate government permission. The company contended that the decision to close an undertaking was at the
complete and sole discretion of the management and the government had no say in this matter.

Along with the 100 workers in P2, a retrenchment notice was also served to two workers, Mr. Tom and Mr. Jerry,
who worked in P1 and were involved in paper manufacturing operations. The reasons for this notice of
retrenchment were stated as follows:

For Mr. Jerry, his deteriorating hearing has rendered him medically unfit, and therefore the management has
decided to retrench him and relieve him of his duties.

For Mr. Tom, following a verbal altercation with management regarding his bonus payment, decided to take time
off without prior approval, and has remained unavailable for the last one month. Consequently, due to his conduct,
he was served a notice of retrenchment.

Based on these facts, kindly use appropriate case law and legislative enactments to advise the following
individuals-

1) The 100 workmen of the Printer manufacturing operations at P2 on (a) the decision of the management to
retrench them and (b) on the question of whether or not they need the permission of the government before closing
down with reasons. (3+3= 6 Marks) (800-1000 words)

2) Advise Mr. Jerry on the validity of him being retrenched. (2 Marks) (250-300 words)

3) Advise Mr. Tom on the legitimacy of the retrenchment notice that he was served. (2 Marks) (250-300 words)

Q3: "Urban Textiles Ltd." is a garment factory located in a rapidly developing industrial area. The company pays
its workers a wage that meets the legally mandated minimum wage for the state. However, the workers claim that
this minimum wage is insufficient to cover their basic living expenses, including food, shelter, healthcare, and
education for their children. They argue that they are entitled to a "fair wage" or even a "living wage" that reflects
the actual cost of living in the area.

A. The company argues that it is complying with the law by paying the minimum wage and that any increase
in wages would make its operations uncompetitive.
B. The workers have approached a labour union seeking to negotiate for higher wages.

Analyze the legal and ethical arguments surrounding the workers' demand for a fair or living wage, considering
the distinctions between minimum, fair, and living wages. (10 Marks) (1000-1200 words)

Q4: Desi Craftworks is a workshop located in a small industrial town in Maharashtra, renowned for its exquisite
handcrafted wooden furniture. Pooja, a woman with a disability, is an artisan at Desi Craftworks. Recently, she
has been feeling increasingly uncomfortable due to the behavior of Rahul, a fellow craftsman. Rahul frequently
offers unsolicited advice on Pooja's projects and makes remarks suggesting she might need extra help due to her
disability. Despite her evident reluctance, he insists on joining her during breaks. He also recently rearranged her
workstation without her permission, claiming it would be more accessible for her. On one occasion, Rahul made
an inappropriate comment about Pooja's appearance in front of other artisans, leaving her embarrassed and
anxious. Pooja has attempted to express her concerns to the workshop owner, but her complaints have been
dismissed. The owner insists that Rahul is simply being kind and considerate. Pooja is worried that her issues are
being disregarded as just related to her disability.

Aman, a cis-gendered man, is the logistics coordinator at Desi Craftworks. He frequently travels with his
supervisor, Rohan, across India to procure materials from suppliers. During these trips, Rohan often makes

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 3

personal comments about Aman's lifestyle and insists on sharing hotel rooms with Aman to "cut costs," despite
Aman's discomfort. On a recent trip, Rohan made an inappropriate joke about Aman's relationship status and
sexuality in front of a supplier, leaving Aman feeling deeply uncomfortable about future trips. Aman is unsure if
this offsite harassment can be reported at their workplace and is hesitant to report the behavior, fearing retaliation
due to Rohan's close relationship with the workshop owner. He is also concerned about how his gender might
affect the perception of his complaints.

Desi Craftworks, being a small operation with fewer than 10 employees, lacks a policy or formal mechanisms for
addressing workplace issues. Recently, after hearing a colleague share her experience of addressing domestic
abuse issues through a legal aid camp set up in their town, Pooja and Aman mustered the courage to separately
approach the legal aid camp. As their assigned lawyer, address the following questions, referring to appropriate
legal provisions, laws, and cases in your analysis:

1. Assess whether the experiences of Pooja and Aman at Desi Craftworks constitute sexual harassment under
workplace laws. What challenges might they encounter in pursuing these claims? (5 marks) (500-800 words)

2. Critically evaluate the legal recourses available to Pooja and Aman for addressing their experiences of sexual
harassment. How effective are the current legal frameworks in providing protection and recourse, and what
potential gaps or limitations exist? (5 marks) (500-800 words)

Q5: PQR Textiles, a large spinning mill on the outskirts of Coimbatore, employs 800 workers, including many
migrant labourers from Odisha and Bihar. Over time, workers became increasingly dissatisfied due to low wages,
excessive overtime, poor ventilation, and unpaid salaries. After multiple failed negotiations with management, a
trade union-led group of workers announced an indefinite strike to demand overdue wages and better working
conditions. Fearing job loss and lack of alternatives, some workers, mainly migrants, continued working. Family
members and local supporters set up community kitchens outside the mill to provide food and essentials for the
striking workers.

A week into the strike, union members blocked the mill gates, preventing non-striking workers from entering,
bringing production to a complete halt. Citing concerns over potential violence and disruption, management
sought police intervention. The next day, a small group of protesters, angered by management’s refusal to
negotiate, stormed the administrative office, broke windows, destroyed files, and set fire to part of the mill.
Another group extended the protest to the residences of the employers. The same day, the state government
referred the dispute for conciliation.

The following day, despite the order of reference made by the government for conciliation, the management
declared a lockout, citing security concerns. Notices were posted stating that the mill would remain shut
indefinitely and that no wages would be paid during this period. Additionally, management issued termination
notices to both striking workers and non-striking workers whose family members were involved in food
distribution, viewing their actions as indirect participation in the strike. Workers, however, claimed that this was
a retaliatory move to suppress the strike.

Feeling wronged, the terminated workers approached the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. Based on relevant statutes
and legal precedents, answer the following questions:

a) Were the conditions for a legal strike fulfilled throughout the duration of the strike? Critically assess the
dismissals and discharges of (i) The striking workers, (ii) The non-striking workers whose family members were
involved in food distribution. (5 marks) (500-800 words)
b) Examine the legality of the lock-out under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA)/ Industrial Relations Code,
2020 (IRC). What legal remedies are available to the affected workers? (5 marks) (500-800 words)

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 4

Q6: Creek Paints Ltd. is a manufacturing company engaged in the production of industrial paints and coatings.
The company has a factory in Mumbai where it provides canteen services to its employees. The canteen is run by
a third-party contractor, Monica’s Catering Services, which is responsible for hiring and managing the canteen
staff, including cooks, servers, and cleaners. A group of canteen workers approached the Industrial Tribunal,
claiming for labour reliefs and that they should be considered employees of Creek Paints Ltd. rather than Monica's
Catering Services. The canteen was operated by an independent contractor, Monica’s Catering Services, which
was solely responsible for the employment and management of the workers. The workers claimed that since the
canteen served an essential function within the factory, the canteen workers should be treated as direct employees
of Creek Paints Ltd. The Paint Company claimed that there was no direct employer-employee relationship
between the canteen workers and them. It was also stated that the Creek Paint Ltd. had no role in hiring, firing,
or paying the wages of the canteen staff.

In light of above facts and judicial precedents, what would be the likely outcome of this case on the following, –

1. Whether the canteen workers can be considered workers of Creek Paints Ltd. despite being hired by a third-
party contractor. ( 7 Marks) (800-1000 words)
2. How does the concept of control and supervision play a role in establishing the status of canteen workers?
(3 Marks) (250-300 words)

CASE LIST

• ACC Rajanka Lime Stone Quarries Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions AIR 1958 Pat 470
• Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Ashok Harikuni (2000) 8 SCC 61
• All India Radio v Santosh Kumar (1998) 3 SCC 237
• Anand Bihari and others v RSRTC and another 1991 Lab IC 494
• Associated Cement Companies v Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56
• B.R. Singh v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1
• Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay v. Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd (1985) I LLJ 314
• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A.S. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213
• Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd v Their Workmen AIR 1955 SC 33
• Bokajan Cement Corpn. Employees’ Union v Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 142
• Central Machine Tools Institute v. Assistant Labour Commissioner 1979 (38) FLR 158
• Chandra Bhavan Boarding v. State of Mysore AIR 1970 SC 2042
• Coir Board, Ernakulam and Cochin v Indira Devi (1998) 3 SCC 259
• Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. Management AIR 1957 SC 264
• Diwan Mohideen Sahib v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370
• G.S. Dhara Singh v. E.K. Thomas AIR 1988 SC 1829
• Gaurav Jain v. Hindustan Latex Family Promotion Trust Writ Petiton (Civil) no. 139/2015 Delhi High
Court
• General Manager Telecom v A Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767
• Gujarat Steel Tubes v Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896
• Hariprasad Shiv Shankar Shukla v A.D. Divelkar AIR 1957 SC 121
• HR Adhyantaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737
• HussainBhai v. Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257
• Kairbetta Estate v Rajamanickam AIR 1960 SC 893
• Lohia Machines Limited v. Registrar, Trade Unions Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13658 of 2008

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 5

 • Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa 1987 AIR 1281
• Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa 1989 (1) LLJ 61
• MRF United Workers Union v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Writ Petition No. 17991 of 2008 Read with MRF
Employees’ Union v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Writ Petition No. 24228 of 2016
• Orissa Textiles & Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa 2002 Lab IC 570(SC)
• Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats 1995 (1) SCC 501
• PC Roy v. Raycom AIR 1964 Cal 221
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
• Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257
• Punjab Land Development Officer v. Presiding Officer (1990) 3 SCC 682
• Quinn v. Leatham [1901] UKHL 2
• Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company v. Jatin Chakravorty AIR 1960 SC 1012
• Randhir Singh v. UOI 1982 AIR 879
• Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions AIR 1962 Mad 231
• Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82
• Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82
• SK Maini v. M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510
• SK Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214
• State of AP v. G. Sreenivasa Rao 1989 SCR (1)1000
• State of Bihar v. Deodhar Jha AIR 1958 Pat 51
• State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007) 11 SCC 681
• State of UP v Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1
• Steel Authority of India Ltd. v National Union of Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1
• Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour (1979) ILLJ 448 AP Read with
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour 1995 Supp (3) SCC 653
• TK Rangarajan v Govt of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3032
• Uptron v Shammi Bhan (1998) 6 SCC 538
• Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del)
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (6) SCC 241
• Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v Their Management AIR 1964 SC 1458 Workmen of Firestone Tyre
and Rubber Co. v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (1976) I LLJ 493 (SC)
• Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v DTE AIR 1958 SC 353
• Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 514
• Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547
• Workmen v Dharampal Premchand (Saughandi) AIR 1966 SC 182
• Workmen v. Management of Reptakos Brett AIR 1992 SC 504

End-term Examination – Spring 2025 Page 6