Petition Filed Under Article 32, Constitution of GEORGOPOL, WRIT PETITION NO. - /2020

LVMCC-103
0
ST
1 LAWSCHOLE VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32, CONSTITUTION OF

GEORGOPOL, WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2020
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32, CONSTITUTION OF
GEORGOPOL, WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
IN THE MATTER OF:

Employees Association of Princeton Private Limited
Employees Association ofv.Princeton Private Limited

Princeton Private
v. Limited
Princeton Private Limited
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL
THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

1
ST
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................11
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE STRIKES AGITATED BY EMPLOYEES ILLEGAL OR

UNJUSTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
AND HENCE, IN VIOLATION OF LAWS OF GEORGOPOL?....................................11
1. THE DEMANDS OF PETITIONER ARE HIGHLY

UNREASONABLE……………………….………………………………………....11
2. THE STRIKES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED………………..……………….12
3. THE EMPLOYEES DEMANDS WERE NOT MADE BONAFIDE……………….13
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER

THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005 ULTRA VIRES OF THE
ACT?....................15
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY

THE GOVERNMENT CALLING UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT TO
DEDUCT THE SALARIES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND FURTHER ADVISING
THEM NOT TO TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYEMENT DURING THE
LOCKDOWN PERIOD, ARE MANDATORY IN
NATURE?...............................................................................................................................15
1. SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE PRIMA FACIE UNREASONABLE,

ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW……………….
…………………………………………………………………19
2. SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE NON-
STATUTORY………………….21
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A

SEPARATE CLASS BY THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION?.............................................................................................................22

2
ST
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...…..26
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. Bangalore Silk Throwing Factory v Its Workmen, (1957) ILLJ (L.A.T. Bombay).
435
2. Punjab National Bank Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1952) (II) LL.J. 648 at p. 655.
3. Swadesh Industries Ltd v Their Workmen, (1960) AIR SC 1250
4. Sri Kanyakaparameswari Groundnut Oil Mils contractor's company v their
workmen, (1955) I LLJ (566 I.T.) 561
5. Dabir (Et. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd., v Their Workmen, (1961) II FLR (I.T.) Calcutta.
10
6. Caltex (India) Ltd. v. Certain workmen, (1954)(II) LL.J.516 (520)
7. Dharam Singh Rajput v. Bank of India Bombay, (1979) Lab. IC 1079 (DB)(Punj).
8. Workers of Textool Co. Ltd. v. Textool Co. Ltd., 10 I.J.R. 460
9. West Bengal Flour Mills Mazdoor Congress v. Hooghly Flour Mills Co. Ltd., 10
F.J.R. 240(L.A.T).
10. Ramakrishna Iron Foundry, Howrah v. their workers, (1954)(II) LLJ 372 at p.374
11. Union Factories in Bihar v. Their Workmen, 13 FJR 150
12. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Employees Union v. Andhra
Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 1970 L.I.C. 1225
13. Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1970
SC 867
14. Ficus Pax Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, [Writ Petition (C) Diary
No. 10983 of 2020]
15. Crompton Greaves vs. the Workmen, (1978) 3 SCC 155
16. Bank of India vs. T.S. Kelawala, (1990) II LLJ 39
17. Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319
18. Nimar Textiles Ltd. vs L.K. Pandey, Dy. Labour Commissioner & anr., (1997)
IIILLJ 224 MP
19. Poe vs Ullman, (1961) 367 US 497 (543)
20. Sanchit Bansal vs Joint Admission Board, AIR 2012 SC 214
21. Gj Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors, [AIR 1967 SC 1753]
22. Polytech Trade Foundation V. Union of India & Ors, C.M. No. 10546/2020 in W.P.(C) 3029/2020

3
ST
23. Golden Importers V. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2790
24. Sooraj Narayan Srivastava V. State of UP, AIR 2003 All 259
25. Cf Dasaratha Vs state of AP, AIR 1992 SC 1852
26. Srinivasa Theatre vs State of TN, AIR 1992 SC 999
27. State of Bihar vs Bihar state ‘plus two’ lecturers association, AIR 2007 SC 1948
28. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.B. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
29. In re The Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380
30. Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335
31. Katra Education Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1307
32. Excel Wear V. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25
33. Food corporation of India V. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh, (2012) 2 SCC 307
34. State of Rajasthan V. Shanker Lal Parmar, AIR 2012 SC 1913
STATUTES
1. Indian Constitution, 1949
2. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
3. Payment of Wages Act, 1936
4. Code on Wages, 2019
5. Disaster Management Act, 2005
6. Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

4
ST
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners on behalf of Employees Association of Princeton Private Limited has

approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of Georgopol by filing a writ petition under article
32 of the constitution of Georgopol.
Article 32 of the Georgopol constitution-
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
The respondents on behalf of Princeton Private Limited are appearing before the Hon’ble
supreme court of Georgopol in response to the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

5
ST
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Princeton private limited (hereinafter referred to as “PPL”) is a company registered

under the statutes of Georgopol and operates in the field of fabric manufacturing. The
company is situated in Mellor City, in Bumpkin, a state in Georgopol. PPL is a world-
renowned company and is a fourth runner in the business of manufacturing huge
varieties of fabrics and garments. The company, since its inception in 1998, has
grown its business by leaps and bounds and receives multi-million-dollar contracts
from the government as well as from some of the most established individuals and
countries around the world. PPL is infamous for its professionalism, commitment as
well as one of the best human resource managements across the globe. The company
has always prioritised employee satisfaction.
2. In the first quarter of the year 2020, the world experienced the first pandemic of the
21st century, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The unprecedented infection rate,
unknown symptoms coupled with the lack of vaccination or cure sent the entire planet
into chaos causing governments to take unheard measures of complete lockdown of
all most all the services and operations so as to curl down the effects of the said virus.
The impact of the outbreak was so devastating and at such a global scale that the
world health organisation (WHO), on march 11,2020, declared COVID-19 as a
‘notified disaster’. Following this declaration by y the central government, several
state governments also imposed a complete lockdown in their states invoking the 123-
year-old legislation, i.e. Epidemic Diseases Act,1897. Taking into account the
lockdown imposed by the central and the state governments, the Ministry of Labour
and Employment issued an advisory on March 20,2020 appealing to all the
employer’s associations not to terminate the employment of their employees or cut the
wages of its workers in view of the lockdown. The advisory also stated that all the
employers of public/private establishments are advised to extend their cooperation by
not terminating the employment of their employees, particularly casual or contractual
workers and further not to reduce their wages.

6
ST
3. Meanwhile, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic growth of
Georgopol has taken a significant hit. Almost all the businesses have suffered
unprecedented loss in view of COVID-19 pandemic as well as the consequential
lockdown by the government. Though one of the corporate powerhouses, PPL has
incurred humongous losses owing to the restrictions imposed by the government,
complete cancellation of pre-existing orders and breakage pf the manufacturing and
distribution channel. The worth million-dollar products kept to stagnate in the godown
was an additional contribution to the already incurred losses. But PPL was still
adhering to the directions issued by the government even after incurring such
significant losses.
4. Despite receiving their complete wages in a time-bound manner, the Association of
employees of PPL decided to get an upgrade in their working conditions and
demanded a hike in salaries on April 20,2020. The employees demand was that during
these difficult times of pandemic, their survival would become difficult if their
financial standing is not strong and also, the company usually used to give a raise
during this time of the years so they asked the company to do the needful. The
management assured them regarding their requests and asked them to not get bothered
about the same. Upon this assurance, the employees continued to work on their
assignments while working from home. However, even after the assurance, there was
no decision made by the company regarding the approval or denial of the demands
yet.
5. Due to the callous and indecisive attitude of the management, the employees of PPL
got agitated and called for a strike. On such an action taken by the employees, the
management of PPL gave further assurances and declared that the process of
declaring increment in the wages of the employees is being worked upon by them.
Despite such assurances, the employees of PPL, unanimously decided to proceed with
the one week strike from May 10 to May 17,2020, to which no notice was given to the
employer or to the management of the company. PPL stated that agitating a strike is
not a valid manner to showing dissatisfaction. PPL highlighted the fact that the
demands of the employees are not of urgent or immediate nature and also the decision
of agitating the strikes violates the terms of the service agreement. The management
further pointed out, that agitating illegal strikes is against the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and thus the employees are in complete violation of the
laws of Georgopol. PPL further added that employees welfare and satisfaction being

7
ST
the prime motto of the company, they were looking into the demands of the
employees and would have come up with such schemes that would have rendered
them huge benefits, however due to extreme steps taken by the employees, the
company is constrained to deduct one week’s salary of those employees who agitated
the said strike. They added that such strike is illegal and unjustified and hence no
question of payment comes into picture as these actions have hampered company’s
goodwill and reputation.
6. In the meanwhile, the nationwide lockdown was extended and so have been the
powers of the government under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 (EDA) & Disaster
Management Act (DMA). The government has issued advisories and notifications
against the companies terminating the services of their employees or deducting their
wages during the lockdown. The Ministry of Labour and Employment has issued
advisories to public and private employers and establishments urging them not to
terminate the employment, particularly of the casual and contractual employees and
further not to reduce their wages. Ministry of Home Affairs order dated march
29,2020 requires that during lockdown period, employers should pay wages to all
workers without deductions and any non-compliance shall have to deal with the legal
ramifications. In view of the said notifications/orders, as mentioned , the employers
have been advised to pay full salary without any deduction during the period of
lockdown and any reduction will go against the spirit of section 7 of the Payment of
Wages Act,1936, including the COVID-19 related circulars that prohibit such
reductions.
7. It was later stated by the PPL that both the employers and the employees are equally
affected by the epidemic and employers alone cannot be treated discriminately. They
further contended that the orders issued under DMA are ultra vires the DMA as the
act does not provide for any power to decide upon the payment of wages of the
employees. They also contended that they are currently unable to provide increment
to the employees as no income has been generated during lockdown owing to the
necessary restrictions imposed by the government. Also, all the businesses/industries
across the country have been affected and one question which is pestering all is ,
“whether the various orders and directions issued by the government calling upon the
private employers not to deduct the salaries of their employees and further advising
them not to terminate their employment during the lockdown period, are mandatory in
nature?” Given that labour law statutes such as the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, the

8
ST
payment of wages act, 1937, contract labour act, 1970, Inter state migrate workmen
act, 1979 among others govern payment of wages to workers or employees and
particularly the provisions of the industrial dispute act which explicitly recognizes the
right of an employer to lay off an employee during certain eventualities including a
natural calamity. In so far as the employees are concerned, they are at the liberty to
exercise their right under the respective employment contracts but however the ones
who have not reported to work, the employers are at the liberty to not pay for the
period of unauthorized absence.
8. Rebutting to PPL’s contentions, the employees stated that in tern of financial impact,
the employees are worst affected as their survival is wholly dependent on the wages.
They pointed out that the doctrine of reasonable classification would come into play
in this situation and thus the employees have to be treated as a separate class from the
employers and both cannot be treated as being equally affected by the pandemic. The
employees further contended that though the DM act does not specifically confer or
vest power with the central or the state government appointed under the act to direct
the payment of the wages/salaries by the private establishment, this direction is
clearly covered under the provisions of the act. They stated that the orders are issued
pursuant to section 35(l) and 38(l) of the DMA which provide the central and the state
government to take “ such matters as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose
of securing effective implementation of the provisions of the DMA”, as also sections
10(l); 10(2)(d) & 10(2)(q). the employees said that such actions taken have violated
their fundamental rights as provided under the constitution of Georgopol.
9. Owing to such plight, the employees Association of PPL on June 25, 2020, filed a
petition before the Hon’ble supreme court of Georgopol.

9
ST
SUMMARY OF ARUGUEMENTS
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE STRIKES AGITATED BY EMPLOYEES OF PPL ILLEGAL AND
UNJUSTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
AND HENCE, IN VIOLATION OF LAWS OF GEORGOPOL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Georgopol that the strikes
agitated by the petitioners are illegal and unjustified under the purview of Section 22(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The strike was not notified to the respondents under this
particular section. Furthermore, the service contract between the employers and the
employees of PPL, was also breached by the employees. The respondents’ motto primarily
has been the welfare and satisfaction of the employees, and the management of the
respondents had assured the employees that it would reach a decision in the coming months,
which would include significant benefits for the employees. However, the move resorted to
by the employees is unreasonable, frivolous and unjustified. Thus, the respondents, had
resorted to non-payment of wages under Section 18(2)(b) of the Code on Wages, 2019 for the
duration of the strike.
ISSUE II:
WHETHER THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE
DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005 ULTRA VIRES OF THE ACT?
On account of the Coronavirus Pandemic, the government had released certain advisories and
directions invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act,
2005. As mentioned in the facts, the Ministry of Labour and Employment had issued
advisories for both public and private sectors, urging them to not terminate the employment
of employees, particularly casual or contractual employees and further not to reduce their
wages, contravention of which many attract certain legal ramifications under Section 7 of the

10
ST
Payment of Wages Act, 1936. However, the counsel for the respondents contend that, the
government did not have either the jurisdiction or authority to make any laws regarding
payment of wages of the employees or termination of employees under Section 35, 38, 10(1),
10(2)(d) & 10(2)(q) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Hence, the orders and advisories
of the ministry issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 are ultra vires of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005 and hence not applicable. Furthermore, the employers i.e.
the respondents possess the absolute liberty to not pay for the period of unauthorized
absenteeism under Section 18 of the Code on Wages, 2019 ( Section 7 of the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 and they possess the right to lay off employees during certain eventualities
including a natural calamity under Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
ISSUE III :
WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE

GOVERNMENT CALLING UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT TO
LOCKDOWN PERIOD, ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE?
The counsels on behalf of the respondents would like to submit that the orders and directions
issued by the government calling upon the private employers not to deduct the salaries of
their employees and further advising them not to terminate their employment during the
lockdown period are not mandatory in nature as these orders and directions are blatantly
irrational, unreasonable and do not have any statutory backing. The government has shown
an extreme level of ambiguousness while passing these directions, at the same time.
ISSUE IV :
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE CLASS

BY THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION?
The treatment of the employees as the separate class by bringing the concept of reasonable
classification is against the intention as well as the purpose of law that favours the concept of
reasonable classification. We have already witnessed the fact that employers are
discriminated against the employees even though the situations are such that both have
suffered equally. In addition to that, the irrational and unreasonable acts of the government

11
ST
against the employers have violated the very fundamental right to equality under article 14 of
the constitution.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether the strikes agitated by employees illegal or unjustified with respect to

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, in violation of laws of Georgopol?
The counsel humbly contends before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Georgopol on behalf of
the respondents (PPL) that the strikes agitated by the petitioners (employees) are illegal and
unjustified with respect to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because of the contentions
hereinafter referred.
The strikes are illegal as it violates Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred as ‘ID Act’). The Section 22(1) of the ID Act, prohibits illegal strikes
and provided that:
22. (1) No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract-
(a) without giving to the employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks
before striking; or
(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and
seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
The petitioners did not serve any kind of notification to the respondents, whatsoever as
required by the abovementioned section. The respondents are a part of public utility services,

12
ST
according to the fifth schedule of the Industrial Disputes act,19471. The respondents are
world-renowned fabric manufacturers and hence are part of the cotton textile industry 2. The
petitioners had hence held the general public at ransom by indulging in lightning strikes.
Furthermore, according to the facts of the case, there has been breach of service agreement 3
under Section 22(1) by the petitioners. The strikes along with being illegal has also been
unjustified. The reasons for the same has been listed below:
(1) The demands of the petitioners were highly unreasonable.
The petitioners demanded a hike in their salaries, in April. The employees were well
aware of the fact that the company is incurring huge losses due to novel coronavirus
pandemic and has reached breakage of the manufacturing and distribution channel. The
company has still adhered to providing the present salaries of the employees following
the advisories and directions issued by the government. The condition of the company is
nowhere ‘usual’ like the past financial years and hence, it is extremely difficult to provide
hike in salaries. Moreover, the wages of the employees, completely adhere to the laws
( regarding minimum wages)4 provided under the Code on Wages, 2019 and is nowhere
in contravention with either the laws of Georgopol or the advisories provided by the
Ministry i.e. there has been no unreasonable deduction of wages 5 on the account of the
losses caused due to the pandemic followed by the lockdown. Further, there is no such
law in the Code of wages, 2019 or any other law pertaining to payment of wages which
mandates increment of salaries of the employees.
The first and foremost requirement of a justified strike is that it should be launched only
for economic demands of workmen like basic pay, dearness allowance, bonus, provident
fund, gratuity, leave and holidays which is the primary object of the trade union/
association. The economic demands should be prima facie reasonable 6. The demands of
workers cannot be frivolous7.
(2) The strike could have been avoided
1
2(n)(vi), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
2
Bangalore Silk Throwing Factory v Its Workmen, (1957) ILLJ (L.A.T. Bombay). 435
3
Punjab National Bank Ltd v. Their Workmen, (1952) (II) LL.J. 648 at p. 655.
4
Chapter II, Code on Wages, 2019
5
Section 18, Code on Wages, 2019
6
Swadesh Industries Ltd v Their Workmen, (1960) AIR SC 1250
7
Sri Kanyakaparameswari Groundnut Oil Mils contractor's company v their workmen, (1955) I LLJ (566 I.T.)
561

13
ST
In the case of Dabir (Et. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd., v Their Workmen 8, it was held that
justification of strike depends upon the fact whether the strike was resorted to after all the
means of redress. The Supreme Court in the case of Caltex (India) Ltd. v. Certain
workmen9 stated that, while strikes were a legitimate weapon in the hand of the workers
to redress their grievances, it must be used as a ‘last resort’ when all other avenues have
proved futile.
However, in the present case the management of the respondents have respectfully valued
the unreasonable (earlier proved) demands of the employees and was in the process of
reviewing these demands. The employees had been assured time and again regarding the
decisions that were going to be taken for their welfare. However, the petitioners, did not
resort to the process of conciliation or arbitration under Chapter III of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 194710 rather chose to avail the most drastic step available, i.e. going on a
strike- affecting the productivity, goodwill and the well-earned reputation of the
respondents. The respondents contend that the petitioners did follow the fair means of
collective bargaining as they agitated a strike without exhausting all the other rights
available to them.
(3) The employees’ demands were not made bona fide
Considering the above facts and circumstances, the counsel for respondents humbly
contend that the strike was unjustified on the basis of the fact that the employees did not
secure genuine interest to secure improvement on the matters of basic industrial interest
to labour, but rather to achieve ulterior motives11.
In the case of West Bengal Flour Mills Mazdoor Congress v. Hooghly Flour Mills Co.
Ltd.12, the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that, where a strike was agitated by the
workmen in spite of the conciliatory attitude of the management and without trying all
other available means of settlement of the dispute according to law, the strike would be
unjustified and the workmen would not be entitled to claim wages for the strike period.
8
(1961) II FLR (I.T.) Calcutta. 10
9
(1954)(II) LL.J.516 (520)
10
Dharam Singh Rajput v. Bank of India Bombay (1979) Lab.IC 1079 (DB)(Punj).: “Right to strike, is to be
exercised after fulfilling certain conditions regarding service of notice and also after exhausting intermediate
and salutary remedy of conciliation proceeding.”
11
Workers of Textool Co. Ltd. v. Textool Co. Ltd. 10 I.J.R. 460.
12
10 F.J.R. 240(L.A.T).

14
ST
In the case of Ramakrishna Iron Foundry, Howrah v. their workers13, a strike may be held
to be unjustified for various reasons, they are:
a. the demands may be pitched unreasonably high, or

b. the employer may have adopted a reasonable attitude by taking steps to have the alleged
grievance redressed through negotiation or conciliation; or
c. the demands were not made bona fide, but with other extraneous motives, that is, for the
specific purpose of embarrassing the employer
In the present case, all these conditions are observed. The aforesaid case also holds that,
in the event of the strike lacking bona fide, the employer has the right to take action
against the workmen who joined the strike. The strike is not a bona fide when:
a. it is resorted to under the pretence of backing a current demand but with the real
object of compelling the employer to reopen a demand which has already been
adjudicated upon or
b. when it is resorted to frivolously or frequently with a view to ruin the factory or
where it is resorted to extraneous considerations.
The petitioners had hence agitated the strikes on pretence of (b), as the employees were
aware of the respondents’ conditions and the fact that it was abiding by all the guidelines
and advisories provided by the government.
In the case of Union Factories in Bihar v. Their Workmen14, it has been held that wherein
the workmen resort to strike as a result of hot-waded decisions without giving their
grievances redressed by conciliation proceedings it was held that the strike was
unjustified.
In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Employees Union v.
Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Hyderabad15, it was held that justifiability
of strike depends upon several factors such as,
(i) Were the demands of the workmen genuine or were reasonable or inspired by an
oblique motive
(ii) Were the demands fair and reasonable
(iii) Did the workers try a less drastic method before going on a strike etc.
13
(1954)(II) LLJ 372 at p.374
14
13 FJR 150
15
1970 L.I.C. 1225

15
ST
In the present case all the three factors are complied with and hence the action of the
petitioners in illegal and unjustified.
In Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Workmen 16, the
Supreme Court held that, in spite of the fact that the management was prepared to pay
bonus17, had announced a production bonus scheme and had made some proposals in the
course of conciliation with the workmen, yet the workmen were not prepared to put off
the strike even by one day and decided to go on strike. Similar situation was observed in
the present case, wherein the petitioners were negligent about the assurances made and
the steps taken by the respondents.
Hence, the counsel on behalf of the responds contends that the strikes were illegal under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, unjustified.
II. Whether the order issued by the Government under the DMA ultra vires of the
Act?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Georgopol, on behalf of the
respondents (PPL) that the orders and advisories issued by the Government under the
Disaster Management Act, 2005 are ultra vires of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
because of the contentions hereinafter referred.
1. In the matter of Ficus Pax Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors18 , it is expressly
stated that the orders of the government under the DMA is ultra vires of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 and is also violative of Article 1419 and 1920.
The petitioners in the case had claimed that
1. The Order compels employers to retain migrant and regular workers. It requires them
to pay full wages especially when there was no business during lockdown. Thus, the
Order can force an otherwise stable and solvent industrial establishment into
insolvency and lose control of business.
2. The government cannot invoke Section 10(2)(l) of DMA, to impose financial
obligations such as payment of wages on employers. The ultimate onus to compensate
workers is that of government and it cannot shift the burden on employers.
16
AIR 1970 SC 867
17
As per the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
18
[Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10983 of 2020]
19
Equality before law
20
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business

16
ST
3. The powers and functions of National Executive Committee (“NEC”) are set out in
Section 10 of DMA. Under Section 10(2)(l), NEC is empowered to laydown
guidelines or give directions regarding measures to be undertaken by concerned
ministries/departments of the Central/State government or state authorities in response
to any threatening disaster situation or disaster. The Order was issued to safeguard
interest of migrant workers. However, the scope of Order should not be extended to
cover entire workforce of an establishment.
4. The Order fails to differentiate between workers who worked during lockdown and
those who didn’t. Hence the Order conflicts with principles of ‘Equal Work Equal
Pay’ and ‘No Work No Pay’21.
5. The Order groups all industries and private establishments in one category thereby
ignoring the fact that such industries and private establishments have different
financial capacity;
6. Failure to comply with Order for genuine reasons like complete absence of funds
would still render the employer liable to prosecution. Thus, the Order is ex-facie
arbitrary and unreasonable;
7. Last but not the least, the Order is contrary to provisions of Article 14, Article 19(1)
(g) and Article 300A22 of the Constitution of India.
The hon’ble court in this order hence provided interim measures and took in consideration the
problems faced by the employers. The Court took note of the fact that
(i) all industries/establishments are of different nature and of different capacity

including financial capacity; and
(ii) not all employers would be able to bear the burden of payment of wages or
substantial wages to their workers during lockdown; and
(iii) no industry/establishment can survive without employers/labourers and vice-
versa; (emphasis supplied) 3. Hon’ble Apex Court therefore felt a need to strike
balance between competitive claims of employers and employees through
negotiations.
There were certain Interim measures devised:
21
Article 39, Directive Principles of State Policy
22
Article 300A of Constitution of India, states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law

17
ST
a. The Apex Court had directed that no coercive action be taken against employers not
complying with the Order. The Court has continued with this direction for all matters;
b. All private employers (including employers whose establishments/industries were
functional during lockdown as well as petitioners) and employees, negotiate and
arrive at a settlement with regards to payment of wages for the applicable period
during which establishment was closed due to lockdown.
Hence, the counsel seeks a similar approach by the Hon’ble court in this case.
2. Further, regarding the order of legal ramifications with regards to non-payment and
deduction of wages, the employer has the compete right to deduct the wages of the
employees who resorted to illegal strike, hence an unauthorised absenteeism under
Section 18(2)(b) under the Code on Wages, 2019 ( Section 7(2)(b) of Payment of wages
Act, 1936). Denial of wages is a consequence of an illegal strike.
In the case of Crompton Greaves vs. the Workmen23, it was stated by the hon’ble court
that, “It is well settled that in order to entitle the workmen to wages for the period of
strike, the strike should be legal as well as justified. A strike is legal if it does not violate
any provision of the statutes”. As we have established earlier, the strike is completely
illegal and violates the laws of Georgopol.
Further, in the case of, Bank of India vs. T.S. Kelawala24, it was held that where the
contract, Standing Orders or the service rules/regulations are silent on the subject, the
management has the power to deduct wages for absence from duty when the absence is a
concerted action on the part of the employees and the absence is not disputed.” It further
held that, “whether the strike is legal or illegal, the workers are liable to lose wages for
the period of strike. The liability to lose wages does not either make the strike illegal as a
weapon or deprive the workers of it. When workers resort to it, they do so knowing fully
well, its consequences”. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid judgment while
reserving the right of the workman to go on strike was of the view that workers are not
entitled to wages during the strike period irrespective of the fact that the strike is legal or
illegal. Hence, it is completely proved that the employees who were involved in the strike
will observe a deduction in their wages.
23
(1978) 3 SCC 155
24
(1990) II LLJ 39

18
ST
In Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak25, the Supreme Court held that “to be entitled to
wages for the strike period, the strike has to be both legal and justified”. Hence, the
employees in the present case are not entitled to any wages during the period of the strike.
3. The next contention deals with the fact that the employers have the right to ‘lay-off’
employees during certain eventualities like a natural calamity in accordance to section
2(kkk), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The government has earlier declared Covid-19 as a
‘notified disaster’. Though the respondents here, did not resort to any such procedure as
to retrenchment or laying-off of any employee, the order on part of the government is in
complete contravention of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The term ‘lay-off’ has been defined as the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on
account of the shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or
the breakdown of machinery or natural calamity or for any other unconnected reason to
give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial
establishment and who has not been retrenched.
Thus, the following are the essentials of lay-off:
a. There must be failure, refusal or inability on the part of the employer to give
employment to a workman.
b. The failure, refusal or inability should be on account of shortage of coal, power or raw
materials or accumulation of stocks or breakdown of machinery, or natural calamity,
or any other connected reason.
c. The workman’s name should be on the muster rolls of the industrial establishment.
d. The workman should not have been retrenched.
In the case of Nimar Textiles Ltd. vs L.K. Pandey, Dy. Labour Commissioner & anr. 26, it
was held that, “There is no matter of doubt that if an employer wants to effect lay-off for
the circumstances enumerated in Section 2(kkk), an employer has to seek permission
under Section 25(M) of such authority as may be specified by the appropriate
Government unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or natural calamity.
Furthermore, the restriction imposed under Sub-section (2) of Section 25(M) cannot be
said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or far in excess of the need for which such restriction
25
AIR 1995 SC 319
26
(1997) IIILLJ 224 MP

19
ST
has been sought to be imposed. It is only in the case of shortage of power or natural
calamity and in the case of mine because such reasons being grave, sudden and explicit,
the Legislature has exempted the need for prior permission for lay- off.”
Hence, it is established that in case of natural disasters, the laying off of employees is
justified and the government order is hence ultra vires of DMA and in contravention with
the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE

GOVERNMENT CALLING UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT TO
LOCKDOWN PERIOD, ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE?
The counsels on behalf of the respondents would like to submit that the orders and directions
issued by the government calling upon the private employers not to deduct the salaries of
their employees and further advising them not to terminate their employment during the
lockdown period are not mandatory in nature as these orders and directions are blatantly
irrational, unreasonable and do not have any statutory backing. The government has shown
an extreme level of ambiguousness while passing these directions, at the same time. Stating
the process that the government has retorted to, the Ministry of Labour and Employment
issued an advisory on March 20, 2020 appealing to all the employer’s associations not to
terminate the employment of their employees or cut the wages of its workers in view of the
lockdown.in addition to that, all the public as well as private establishments were urged to
extend their cooperation by not terminating the employment of their employees, particularly
the casual or the contractual workers and not to reduce their wages too. Furthermore, the
Ministry of Home Affairs, ordered the establishments to pay the wages fully and any
deduction or non-compliance with the said order would have consequences in the form of
legal ramifications. These orders were under the aegis of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE PRIMA FACIE UNREASONABLE,

ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW
The orders and directions issued by the government against the private employers are prima
facie unreasonable and arbitrary. And the retort to both of the above-mentioned aspects
attracts the vice of violation of the constitutional provisions. The government has issued

20
ST
advisories and notifications against the companies under the backing of its powers under the
Epidemic Disease act,1897 & the Disaster Management Act,2005. The procedure in which
the orders and the directions have been issue is in itself arbitrary. Prior to the order of
Ministry of Home Affairs on 29th of march 2020, an advisory was issued by the Ministry of
Labour and Employment on 20th of March,2020. The terms that were being used in the
advisory were in themselves indicating or directive in nature such as, “advisory”, “advised’,
‘appeal’. Taking into the literal interpretation of such terms, it would be appropriate to
construe them as non-binding as something that has to be executed with some statutory force
does not need to appeal in order to implement the same. Secondly, as soon as the lockdown
was extended, the Ministry of Home Affairs came up with the ‘order’, as the non-compliance
with the same was supposed to have legal ramifications. But however, even then, the terms
such as ‘advised’, ‘should ‘were used enabling such order to have a resemblance of moral
obligation and not a legal obligation. The whole scenario explained has much appropriately
questioned the procedure that the government has applied making it discretionary at their
instance. Due process or procedure is a major aspect involved in the justice delivering system
of any country as it helps in the elimination of any kind of arbitrariness 27 and hence offers
protection by rendering equality. Here, PPL, the employer and the employees, both are
equally affected by the epidemic and still, the only party being treated discriminately is the
employer which violates its right to freedom of equality under article 14. An action is said to
be arbitrary, where a person in particular, or a person under authority does certain act by
individual discretion, not giving any heed to the prescribed rules and regulations and then
such action is found on prejudice or preference rather than a reason or fact which is exactly
what the case is here. This is something without any reasonable justification of the act and
hence seems to be illogical and whimsical28. Secondly, the government has impliedly
displayed an unreasonable act by coming up with such direction that do not have any basis in
law. The impugned notifications have not taken into consideration the economical position of
the private establishment amidst covid 19 and has pushed the stable and solvent
establishment into insolvency. Furthermore, by doing such acts, the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the provision of article 19(1)(g) has also been put under violation as any
such order or direction is ensuring that the employer is subjected to loss of his control over
27
Poe vs Ullman, (1961) 367 US 497 (543)
28
Sanchit Bansal vs Joint Admission Board, AIR 2012 SC 214

21
ST
the business practiced by it. Such constitutional violations explicitly have the power to snatch
the binding force from such directions or orders by the government.
As the counsels on behalf of the respondents have already proven that the orders issued
under DMA are ultra vires the DMA as the act does not provide for any power to decide upon
the payment of wages of the employees, the orders and the directions, therefore get
abandoned by the statute itself rendering such orders and directions “non- statutory”. For the
purpose of proving the same, we shall be dealing with the same in the below-mentioned
fashion.
SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE NON-STATUTORY:
When the government comes up with a certain guideline or direction or an order, the question
as to its nature is always an ancillary aspect attached to it. Whether such guidelines are
enforceable by the judiciary, whether they can be subjected to certain deviations by the
competent authority. In other words, whether such directions or the orders by the government
are statutory or merely advisory in nature i.e. discretion could be incorporated as an answer to
such executive restrictions. As far as the compliance with such orders and guidelines are
concerned, seeking enforcement of the same as a matter of right will not be acceptable as
long as such guidelines or directions or orders do not have a statutory backing under the
constitution or the same are in violation with the provisions of the constitution. As long as
this violation or the absence of existence in the provision of the constitution continues, such
compliance is totally in favour of the deviations, if at all required by the competing
authorities, as any such direction would not fall under the category of legislations mandated
by law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a case, gave its judgement on the question as
to whether a certain instruction under the Mysore Public Work Department Code has a
statutory binding or not. The court held that in order to have a statutory binding on any
guideline/direction, its important to acknowledge if such directions or guidelines have been
issued by the executive authority under the conferment of any statute over the government or
by any provision contained under the constitution. In this particular case, the instructions
contained in the department code hasn’t been issued under the conferment of any statute and
nor has it been flown through the provisions of the constitution. Hence, the court held that,
any such instruction, a) cannot be enforced by the judicial intervention and b) since it has
become non-statutory, these are merely instructions that could be followed or abstained from
following. Taking into account the same, the court also held that, because of the above-

22
ST
mentioned reasons, the public cannot file writs for seeking enforcement of the same against
the government.29
NO COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERS: SUPREME COURT
The supreme court in pertinence to the directions being issued has been observed to take a
slew of directions towards the ministries of central government. The advisories and the orders
cannot coerce the employers into payment of the full wages of its employees just to reduce
the burden on them. In a similar case where the petitioner was an association registered with
the registrar of the society under the societies registration act, 1860, comprised of
traders/workers and dealers who were into the business to importing plastic/PVC materials
via sea route from different countries and used to supply the same to the
manufactures/companies of packaged food, medicines and medical equipment. The petitioner
claims that such raw materials were intermediary to the manufacturing of PPE kits, sanitizers,
medicines and other materials needed for the survival against covid 19. However, the deals
from the party of manufacturers weren’t allowing them to lift the materials from the ports as
they wanted the petitioner to pay the penal charges for late receiving of such materials. The
petitioner submitted that such was not possible due to lock down. In the case as well,
advisories from the ministries were taken into account, the court held that Perusal of the said
advisories reveals that these are not mandatory or directory. Vide these advisories shipping
lines and Custodians of ICDs are advised to adopt a sympathetic and humanitarian
approach while levying the container detention charges/ground rent charges on import cargo
for the lockdown period. Thus, it is very clear from the above circulars that these are in the
form of advisories and are not directory in nature and do not mandate respondents not to
charge ground rent, penal charges/demurrage etc.30
In certain other cases too, the humanitarian and sympathetic approach has been taken into
account and the advisories and orders have been given the status of being Directive in nature
and hence not having a binding effect.31
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE CLASS

BY THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION?
29
Gj Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors, [AIR 1967 SC 1753]
30
Polytech Trade Foundation V. Union of India & Ors, C.M. No. 10546/2020 in W.P.(C) 3029/2020
31
Golden Importers V. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2790

23
ST
The treatment of the employees as the separate class by bringing the concept of reasonable
classification is against the intention as well as the purpose of law that favours the concept of
reasonable classification. We have already witnessed the fact that employers are
discriminated against the employees even though the situations are such that both have
suffered equally. In addition to that, the irrational and unreasonable acts of the government
against the employers have violated the very fundamental right to equality under article 14 of
the constitution. The right to equality however, does not only mean right to not be
discriminated but also refers to the protection of the same from arbitrariness and irrational act
of the state32. Another facet of equality before the law is that the state should offer equal
status and opportunity to all the citizens as provided by the preamble of the Indian
constitution and when such denial occurs in the matters of employment, it offends the genus
of article 1433. It’s an exact resemblance to the case that we are dealing with in here. Taking
into account the equal suffering of both the parties, the state is hell bent on to support only
the employees making them the privileged class 34 here, presuming that even after zero
revenue accruement, the employers have to be in a condition to be able to fulfil the
unreasonable demands of the employees. Also, what article 14 prohibits is discrimination and
inequality among the citizens of the country. In order to prove the act unreasonable and hence
arbitrary its very important to go through the test of reasonableness. Art. 14 seeks to be
devoid of discrimination and not classification. Therefore, two aspects have to be taken into
consideration in order to prove that the said act in question attracts grave form of
unreasonableness. The test prescribed for the checking of an act to be reasonable or
unreasonable has the following two aspects35:
a) there has to be a differentiation on the basis of intelligible differentia so that people or

class of people could be distinguished from the group or class of people who are left
out,
b) secondly, there has to be a rational nexus between the intelligible differentia found
and the object sought to be achieved.
The reasonable classification that the employees association have retorted is completely null
as the differentiation done has absolutely no reasonable justification for the same as the
principle of reasonable classification under the ambit of article 14 does not say that same rule
32
Sooraj Narayan Srivastava V. State of UP, AIR 2003 All 259
33
Cf Dasaratha Vs state of AP, AIR 1992 SC 1852
34
Srinivasa Theatre vs State of TN, AIR 1992 SC 999
35
State of Bihar vs Bihar state ‘plus two’ lecturers association, AIR 2007 SC 1948

24
ST
of law shall be applicable to all the persons within the territory of the country or that the same
remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It
only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike, both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed 36. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in
the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another, if
as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the same 37. And
same stands true in the present case where the subject matter of legislation is to strike a
balance between the aspects that render financial stability as well as stops the spread of the
corona virus. This has to be the measure taken for both the parties and not just the privileged
one as per the state’s discretion. Therefore, here, what needs to be taken into consideration is
the circumstance that is clearly similar for both the parties, i.e. financial impact. This shows
that the essentials that the concept of reasonable classification talks about i.e. the
classification done on the basis of intelligible differentia, stands false here.
Secondly, the differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the act are
two distinct things and what is necessary is that there has to be a nexus between the two of
them. That is to say that while article 14 forbids class discrimination while by conferring
privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large number of
persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the liabilities
proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation,
provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above-mentioned. Which is exactly
the case here. As while doing the classification a reason has to be conferred upon in
pertinence to the Intelligible differentia and that should not be arbitrary in nature38.
Furthermore, in a case, it was pointed out that to claim protection of Article 14, it must be
shown that persons differently treated are similarly situated and discrimination is made with
an uneven hand39. Here too, the employers and the employees have been put under similar
situation, yet they are treated differently. The government is extremely considerate when it
comes to the employees however, stringent actions have been put over them.
Hence, there has to be a positive obligation on the part of the state, the syllogism of which
states that
36
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.B. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
37
In re The Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380
38
Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335
39
Katra Education Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1307

25
ST
a) equality means equal opportunity for all and there should not be any privileged class
or persons
b) such equality can be predicated meaningfully only in an equal society, i.e. society
contemplated under article 38 which would mean right in the present circumstance
when two people are standing over equal footing40.
Hence, in order to do a reasonable classification, the basis should be justified. In a case,

incentive increment to in-service employees on acquiring additional qualification and denial
of the same by the employees who are already in service and have already acquired
qualification, was held not discriminatory. Court held that a classification between employees
obtaining higher qualification before joining services bears just and reasonable nexus to the
object sought to be achieved, especially when an incentive is given as a personal pay to be
merged in the pay at the time of the promotion, and had no bearing on inter se seniority and
on promotional chances41. Therefore, classification of employees having good service entry
and employees who had earned good censure for the purpose of selection grade is a valid
classification42.
40
Excel Wear V. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25
41
Food corporation of India V. Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh, (2012) 2 SCC 307
42
State of Rajasthan V. Shanker Lal Parmar, AIR 2012 SC 1913

26
ST
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities
cited, may this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased:
TO HOLD
1. The strikes agitated by the petitioners (employees) as illegal and unjustified

with respect to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The orders and advisories issued by the Government under the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 are ultra vires of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3. The orders and directions issued by the government calling upon the private
employers not to deduct the salaries of their employees and further advising
them not to terminate their employment during the lockdown period are not
mandatory in nature.
4. The concept of reasonable classification is against the intention as well as the
purpose of law that favours the concept of reasonable classification.
And/or
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
And for this, the as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

27
ST

Petition Filed Under Article 32, Constitution of GEORGOPOL, WRIT PETITION NO. - /2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition Filed Under Article 32, Constitution of GEORGOPOL, WRIT PETITION NO. - /2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LVMCC-103

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32, CONSTITUTION OF

IN THE MATTER OF:

Employees Association ofv.Princeton Private Limited

Princeton Private Limited

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE STRIKES AGITATED BY EMPLOYEES ILLEGAL OR

1. THE DEMANDS OF PETITIONER ARE HIGHLY

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY

1. SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE PRIMA FACIE UNREASONABLE,

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

The petitioners on behalf of Employees Association of Princeton Private Limited has

Article 32 of the Georgopol constitution-

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

1. Princeton private limited (hereinafter referred to as “PPL”) is a company registered

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE

WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE CLASS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

I. Whether the strikes agitated by employees illegal or unjustified with respect to

(b) within fourteen days of giving such notice; or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

(1) The demands of the petitioners were highly unreasonable.

(2) The strike could have been avoided

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

(3) The employees’ demands were not made bona fide

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

a. the demands may be pitched unreasonably high, or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

The petitioners in the case had claimed that

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

(i) all industries/establishments are of different nature and of different capacity

There were certain Interim measures devised:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Thus, the following are the essentials of lay-off:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

WHETHER THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE

SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE PRIMA FACIE UNREASONABLE,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SUCH ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ARE NON-STATUTORY:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

NO COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERS: SUPREME COURT

WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE CLASS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

a) there has to be a differentiation on the basis of intelligible differentia so that people or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS