1

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
LABOUR LAW I

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

1. APPLICATION OF THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT

2. CIVIL IMMUNITY – SECTION 18 TUA 1926
3. CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
4. CRIMINAL IMMUNITY – SECTION 17 TUA 1926
5. DEFINITION OF ‘INDUSTRY’ – ARE ‘PROFESSIONS’, RESEARCH LABS OR STATE DEPTS., INDUSTRY?
6. DEFINITION OF ‘WORKMEN’ – CONTRACTORS, LIFTING THE VEIL
7. DEFINITION OF ‘INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE’
8. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIVING WAGE, FAIR WAGE AND MINIMUM WAGE
9. EX-GRATIA PAYMENT UNDER THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT
10. GHERAO
11. PICKETING
12. REGISTRATION UNDER THE TUA 1926
13. RETRENCHMENT V. CLOSURE V. LAY-OFF V. LOCK-OUT
14. SECTION 10 OF THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965
15. SECTION 12 – MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948
16. SECTION 22 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

17. ILLEGAL STRIKES, ILLEGAL LOCK-OUTS

18. UNJUSTIFIED STRIKES, UNJUSTIFIED LOCKOUTS

19. SECTION 4 OF THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976

20. WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

CASE-LIST

1. GHERAO – JAY ENGINEERING WORKS V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AIR 1968 CAL 407
2. REGISTRATION – RANGASWAMI V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AIR 1962 MADRAS 231
3. MEMBERSHIP – BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ UNION V. CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (2004) 1 SCC 142
4. RECOGNITION – BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS UNION, BOMBAY V. BALMER LAWRIE AND COMPANY LTD. (1985) I LLJ 314
5. DEMONSTRATION, IMMUNITY, STRIKE – VIDHYASAGAR INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH V. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (2006) ILLJ 781 (DEL)
6. BANDH – BHARAT KUMAR V. STATE OF KERALA AIR 1997 KER 292
7. COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA V. BHARAT KUMAR (1998) 1 SCC 201
8. RIGHT TO STRIKE AND DEMONSTRATION BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES . KAMESHWAR PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1962 SC 1166

INDUSTRY
1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD V. AS RAJAPPA (1978) 2 SCC 548
2. PHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY V. KG SHARMA (1997) 4 SCC 257
3. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM V. A SRINIVASA (1997) 8 SCC 767
4. ALL INDIA RADIO V. SANTOSH KUMAR (1998) 3 SCC 237
5. COIR BOARD, ERNAKULAM AND COCHIN V. INDIRA DEVI (1998) 3 SCC 259
6. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE V. ASHOK HARIKUNI (2000) 8 SCC 61
7. STATE OF UP V. JAI BIR SINGH (2005) 5 SCC 1

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
1. WORKMEN OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE V. DTE AIR 1958 SC 353
2. WORKMEN V. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND (SAUGHHANDI) AIR 1966 SC 182

WORKMEN
1. DHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS V. MANAGEMENT AIR 1957 SC 264
2. DIWAN MOHIDEEN SAHIB V. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS AIR 1966 SC 370
3. WORKMEN OF NILGIRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2004) 3 SCC 514
 2

4. HUSSAIN BHAI V. ALATH FACTORY EMPLOYEES UNION (1978) 4 SCC 257

5. SK VERMA V. MAHESH CHANDRA (1983) II LLJ 429
6. HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT (1996) 11 SCC 236
7. WORKMEN OF THE CANTEEN OF COATES OF INDIA LTD. V. COATES OF INDIA LTD. (2004) 3 SCC 547

LAY-OFF, STRIKE, LACKOUT, RETRENCHMENT, CLOSURE

Case Name Issue
1. WORKMEN OF DEWAN TEA ESTATE V. THEIR MANAGEMENT (AIR 1964 SC 1458) Lay-off
2. WORKMEN OF FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER CO. V. THE FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. (1976 I LLJ 493 SC) Lay-off
3. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES V. THEIR WORKMEN (AIR 1960 SC 56) Lay-off
4. KARIBETTA ESTATE V. RAJAMANICKAM (AIR 1960 SC 893) Lock-out
5. HARIPRASAD SHIV SHUKLA V. AD DIVELKAR (AIR 1957 SC 121) Retrenchment
6. UPTRON V. SHAMMI BHAN (1998) Retrenchment
7. ANAND BIHARI AND OTHERS V. RSRTC AND ANOTHER (1991) Retrenchment
8. ORISSA TEXTILES & STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA (2002) Closure
9. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES V. UNION (1976) Illegal strike
10. GUJRAT STEEL TUBES V. MAZDOOR SABHA (1980) Illegal strike
11. VIDHYASAGAR INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH V. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (2006) Illegal Strike
12. TK RANGARAJAN V. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (2003) Illegal Strike

THE EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976

1. RANDHIR SINGH V. UOI, 1982 AIR 879
2. PEOPLE’S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS V. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
3. MACKINNON MACKENZIE V. AUDREY D’ COSTA 1987 AIR 1281
4. STATE OF AP V. SREENIVASA RAO 1989 SCR (1) 1000

WAGES
1. STANDARD VACCUM REFINING CO. OF INDIA V. THEIR WORKMEN AIR 1961 SC 895
2. BIJAY COTTON MILLS LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN AIR 1955 SC 33
3. MUIR MILLS CO. LTD. V. SUTI MILLS MAZDOOR UNION, KANPUR (1955) 1 SCR 1991

THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965

1. MILL OWNER’S ASSOCIATION BOMBAY V. RASHTRIAY MILL MAZDOOR SANGH, BOMBAY (1950) 2 LLJ 247
2. MUIR MILLS CO. LTD. V. SUTI MILLS MAZDOOR UNION, KANPUR (1955) 1 SCR 1991
3. JALAN TRADING CO. LTD. V. DM ANAY, AIR 1979 SC 233
 3

IRAC/CRAC METHODOLOGY

What is it?
• Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion OR Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
• Method for organizing legal analysis so that the reader can follow your argument
• Especially helpful in writing exams (IRAC) and legal memos (CRAC).

How to do it?
As an example, we will look at whether someone can sue for battery as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke. The issue we will look at is whether there is contact, which is required for a battery
claim.

Issue
• First state the question or problem that you are trying to answer (what might bring the parties into court). This can be in the form of a question or a statement depending on what your reader
prefers. Examples:
o “There is an issue as to whether contact occurred when the plaintiff inhaled the second-hand smoke.”
o “Does contact occur when one inhales second-hand smoke created by another?”
• However, in legal memos, one may state the conclusion up front (in case the reader is too busy to read through the entire analysis. Some professors also prefer that you state the conclusion
up front.

Rule
• State the rule or legal principle. This may take the form of stating the elements required for a prima facie case.
o “The prima facie case for battery requires the following elements: an act, intent, contact, causation, and harm.”
• Some professors do not want you to explicitly state the rule (i.e., “The rule is…”). Rather, they prefer that you imply it in your answer. In other words, cut to the chase by focusing your rule
statement on the part of the rule or element that is at issue.
o “The offense of battery requires contact with the plaintiff’s person.”

Analysis
• This is where you state your evidence and explain how you will arrive at your conclusion. You may cite other cases, discuss policy implications, and discuss (discount?) cases that run
counter to your conclusion.
• Make sure that you weigh both sides and make counterarguments where appropriate.
• Use case law, analogizing and distinguishing, and policy (for example, the goals of tort law) to work your way to a conclusion.
o “In Howe v. Ahn, the court held that noxious bus fumes inhaled by a passerby constitute harmful and offensive contact. Although the court h as not extended this holding to a case
involving second-hand smoke, numerous cases have likened second-hand smoke to air pollution (for example, Fox v. Abernathy). Policy considerations also favor finding contact
in the present case. If one can prove harm as a result of inhaling second-hand smoke, it is better for the smoker to compensate the victim than burden the state.”

Conclusion
o “The court is likely to find that harmful contact occurs when a smoker releases second-hand smoke into the air and that air is inhaled by a bystander.”