2020

Which one of the following is a condition precedent for appointment as the presiding officer of a labour court under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

[amp_mcq option1=”Holding judicial office in India for a minimum of 15 years” option2=”Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge” option3=”Minimum 20 years of experience as presiding officer of a labour court constituted under any State Act” option4=”Minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III” correct=”option2″]

The correct answer is B.

Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifies the qualifications for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court. One of the conditions listed in Section 7(3)(b) is that the person “has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge”. Option B states “Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge”. Since 5 years is “not less than three years”, this condition is fulfilled by a person with 5 years of experience as a District Judge or Additional District Judge.

Other qualifications under Section 7(3) include being a High Court Judge (a), holding any judicial office in India for not less than seven years (c), or being the presiding officer of a State Labour Court for not less than five years (d). Options A and C list judicial office and State Labour Court PO experience, respectively, but with incorrect minimum durations (15 years vs 7 years for judicial office; 20 years vs 5 years for State Labour Court PO). Option D, minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III, is a specific rank which usually falls under the general category of “judicial office” requiring 7 years experience under Section 7(3)(c); 3 years in IJS Grade III typically does not meet the 7-year threshold for judicial office, nor is it usually equivalent to District Judge experience. While technically options A and C also state durations exceeding the minimum requirements of the Act, implying they are also valid conditions, the question asks for “which one of the following is a condition precedent”. Option B presents a specific category (DJ/Addl DJ) with a duration (5 years) that clearly meets the minimum requirement (3 years) for that category as listed in the Act. Assuming the question is well-posed and intends a single correct answer, Option B is the most direct representation of a valid condition derived from the Act’s specified categories, despite the duration being higher than the minimum.

According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is a condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman employed in any industry for not less than one year ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Three months’ notice in writing” option2=”One month’s notice in writing” option3=”Wages equivalent to minimum three months’ average pay for every year of completed service to be paid” option4=”Wages equivalent to minimum one month’s average pay for every year of completed service to be paid” correct=”option2″]

The correct answer is B.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. These conditions are:
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner has been served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

Option B directly corresponds to condition (a) of Section 25F.

Retrenchment compensation (condition b) is 15 days’ average pay per year of service, not minimum one or three months’ average pay per year as stated in options C and D. Option A states three months’ notice, which is incorrect; the requirement is one month’s notice or pay in lieu.

What is the penalty prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a person who commits any unfair labour practices ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Imprisonment up to 2 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both” option2=”Imprisonment up to 3 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both” option3=”Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both” option4=”Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both” correct=”option3″]

Section 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prescribes the penalty for committing any unfair labour practice. The penalty is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

– Chapter V-C (Sections 25T and 25U) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with unfair labour practices.
– Section 25T prohibits any employer or workman or a trade union from committing any unfair labour practice.
– Section 25U provides the punishment for violating Section 25T.

– Unfair labour practices are listed in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. These include actions like interfering with the right of workmen to organize, dominating or interfering with a trade union, discriminating against workmen for union activities, or engaging in certain forms of coercive or threatening behaviour.
– The prescribed penalty serves as a deterrent against engaging in practices that are considered detrimental to healthy industrial relations.