Labour law:-

1:- Banglore case:-

The Appellant Board in Bangalore Water Supply Case imposed fines on the respondent employees for
instances of misconduct and successfully recovered various sums as penalties. In response, the
employees initiated Claims Application No. 5/72 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
asserting that the disciplinary actions taken against them had transgressed the principles of natural
justice.

The Appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court, contending that the Board,
being a statutory body responsible for providing essential amenities to citizens, essentially fulfils a
sovereign function and therefore does not qualify as an “industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, it was argued that the employees were not classified as
“workmen,” thus challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the employees’
claim.

Despite the Board’s objection, the Labour Court ruled in favour of the employees. Subsequently, the
Appellant Board submitted two Writ Petitions, specifically, Nos. 868 and 2439 of 1973, before the
Karnataka High Court in Bangalore. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed these petitions,
asserting that the Appellant Board indeed falls under the definition of an “industry” as stated in section
2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues

The central issue, in Bangalore Water Supply Case, was whether a statutory body engaged in activities
essential for providing basic amenities to citizens, which were considered as regal (sovereign) functions,
could be classified as an “industry” under the definition provided in Section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The case revolved around determining whether such activities could be subject to
the legal provisions governing industrial disputes.

Provisions of Law in Question

The term “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is subject to
evaluation through the “triple test” and “dominant nature test.” This pertains to whether activities
performed by a statutory body, essentially fulfilling sovereign functions by offering essential amenities
to citizens, fall within or outside the definition of “industry.”

The matters relates with Labour Law in India.

Judgement in Bangalore Water Supply Case

In Bangalore Water Supply Case, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive
examination of the scope of “industry.” The majority decision, endorsed by five judges, with two judges
dissenting, overruled previous judgments such as Safdarjung Solicitors’ case, Gymkhana, Delhi
University, Dhanrajgiri Hospital and Cricket Club of India.

It upheld the principles established in the Hospital Mazdoor Shabha and Indian Standards Institution
cases. The court followed the precedents set by the Banerji and Corporation of City of Nagpur cases.

The Bench in Bangalore Water Supply Case comprised seven esteemed judges: Beg M. Hameedullah (CJ),
Chandrachud Y.V., Bhagwati P.N., Krishna Iyer V.R., Tulzapurkar V.D., Desai D.A. and Singh Jaswant. Its
purpose was to delineate the extent of “industry.” The concept of the “triple test” emerged from this
case, serving as a benchmark for assessing the legality of various establishments.

Triple Test

The Triple Test laid in Bangalore Water Supply Case entails the following criteria:

Systematic Activity

Cooperation between Employer and Employee

Activity Pertaining to Goods and Services Production to Fulfill Human Needs

It’s important to note that religious services or other activities rooted in spiritual fulfilment are not
encompassed within the definition of “industry.” The motive for profit is irrelevant in this context. The
triple test directs attention to the functional aspects, specifically focusing on the relationship between
employer and employee.

Philanthropic activities do not disqualify an establishment from being classified as an “industry.”

Consequently, if an undertaking satisfies all the aforementioned criteria, it can be labelled as an
“industry” under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Key points to consider:

The absence of a profit motive in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa does not
negate the nature of an undertaking, regardless of whether it is in the public, joint, private, or another
sector.

The emphasis is on functionality and the crucial criterion is the nature of the activity, particularly the
relationship between employer and employee.

The philanthropic nature of an endeavour does not alter its classification as a trade or business.

Organised activities possessing the triple elements described earlier may qualify as “industry” even if
they are not strictly trade or business. The presence of employer-employee dynamics resembling those
in trade or business is pivotal, even if other features differ.

These guidelines, as laid in Bangalore Water Supply Case, should not be restricted by invoking creeds,
cults, or inner senses of incongruity or outer motivations in economic operations. The statute’s essence
revolves around resolving industrial disputes between employers and workers and the definition’s reach
must align with this intent.

The Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply Case determined that professions, clubs, educational
institutions, cooperatives, research institutes, charitable projects and similar ventures if they meet the
triple test criteria, fall within the scope of Section 2(j). In essence, organised activities fulfilling the triple
elements, even if they do not strictly align with trade or business, can be considered “industry” if the
employer-employee relationship resembles that of trade or business.

Dominant Nature Test

In the Bangalore Water Supply case, the Supreme Court provided guidelines for determining the
dominant nature of an undertaking:

In cases where a combination of activities involves both exempt and non-exempt elements and engages
employees across the entire undertaking, the nature of the predominant department determines
whether the whole undertaking qualifies as an “industry.” The status of employees who do not meet the
“workmen” definition may not be affected.

Sovereign functions, strictly interpreted, qualify for the exemption. Welfare activities or economic
endeavours undertaken by government or statutory bodies do not qualify for the exemption.

Even within departments engaged in sovereign functions, if there are units that operate as industries
and are largely separable, they may fall within the scope of Section 2(j).

Bangalore Water Supply Summary

The Bangalore Water Supply case involved a seven-judge Supreme Court panel that defined “industry.”
It introduced the “triple test,” focusing on systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation and
goods/services production for human needs. Philanthropic activities or lack of profit motive were
irrelevant.

The ruling encompassed organised activities meeting these criteria as “industry,” irrespective of
trade/business and extended to professions, clubs, educational institutions, etc. The “dominant nature
test” determined an undertaking’s nature based on the most significant department. Sovereign
functions were exempted and separable industry units within sovereign departments fell within Section
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2:- Unfair Labour Practices:-

Unfair labor practices (ULPs) refer to various actions or behaviors by employers or labor organizations
that violate labor laws and undermine the rights of employees or their representatives. These practices
can lead to labor disputes and are typically prohibited in many labor relations systems. Here are some
common examples of unfair labor practices:
1. Interfering with Employee Rights:

- Employers cannot interfere with employees’ rights to organize, join, or assist labor organizations.

- Employers cannot dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of labor organizations.

- Employers cannot discriminate against employees who engage in protected concerted activities, such
as discussing wages or working conditions.

2. Retaliation:

- Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who file complaints or testify in
proceedings related to labor laws.

- Employers cannot discriminate against employees for their union activities or for filing unfair labor
practice charges.

3. Refusing to Bargain:

- Employers who are required to bargain collectively with a union must engage in good faith
negotiations. Refusing to negotiate in good faith is considered an unfair labor practice.

- Labor organizations are also required to bargain in good faith with employers.

4. Coercion and Intimidation:

- Employers cannot use threats, intimidation, or coercion to discourage employees from joining or
supporting a union.

- Similarly, labor organizations cannot engage in coercive or intimidating tactics to gain support or
membership.

5. Discrimination in Hiring and Firing:

- Employers are not allowed to discriminate in hiring, firing, or terms and conditions of employment
based on an employee’s union membership or activities.

- Discrimination based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics is also prohibited under
anti-discrimination laws.

6. Violating Collective Bargaining Agreements:

 - Employers must adhere to the terms of collective bargaining agreements once they are in place.
Violating these agreements can be considered an unfair labor practice.

7. Failure to Provide Information:

- Employers must provide relevant information to labor organizations during the bargaining process.
Failing to do so can be considered an unfair labor practice.

Certainly, I can provide some additional information about unfair labor practices:

8. Surface Bargaining: Surface bargaining occurs when an employer engages in collective bargaining with
a labor union, but does so in a perfunctory or insincere manner. This means the employer may not
genuinely attempt to reach an agreement and may simply go through the motions of negotiations. This
is considered an unfair labor practice.

9. Refusal to Provide Benefits: Employers must adhere to the terms of labor agreements, including
providing the benefits and protections outlined in those agreements. Refusing to provide agreed-upon
benefits, such as health insurance or retirement contributions, can be considered an unfair labor
practice.

10. Secondary Boycotts: A secondary boycott involves a union exerting pressure on a third party, such as
suppliers, customers, or other businesses, to cease doing business with the employer involved in a labor
dispute. This practice can be unlawful in many jurisdictions.

11. Violating Strikes and Lockouts: Employers and labor organizations must adhere to legal procedures
when initiating strikes or lockouts. Violating these procedures can be considered an unfair labor
practice.

12. Mass Discharges or Discriminatory Layoffs: Mass terminations or layoffs that target union activists or
members of a particular protected class may be considered unfair labor practices. Employers should
have legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for such actions.

The specific unfair labor practices and their consequences can vary depending on the labor laws of the
country or jurisdiction. In the United States, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) oversees and
enforces labor laws related to unfair labor practices. Other countries may have similar agencies or labor
boards responsible for addressing these issues.
It’s important to consult the labor laws and regulations specific to your region or jurisdiction for a more
detailed understanding of unfair labor practices and their consequences.

3:- process of registration and deregister of trade union in detail

The process of registering and deregistering a trade union varies by country and is subject to the specific
labor laws and regulations of that jurisdiction. I’ll provide a general overview of these processes, but it’s
important to consult the labor laws and the relevant government agency in your specific location for
detailed, up-to-date information.

**Registration of a Trade Union**:

1. **Eligibility**: To register a trade union, you typically need to meet certain eligibility criteria,
such as having a minimum number of members who are employees or workers in the relevant
industry or occupation.

2. **Choose a Name**: Select a unique name for your trade union that does not conflict with the
names of existing unions.

3. **Constitution and Bylaws**: Draft a constitution and bylaws for the trade union. These
documents should outline the union’s objectives, membership criteria, governance structure,
and operational procedures.

4. **Leadership**: Appoint or elect the leadership of the trade union, including officers, executive
committee members, and office bearers, as per the union’s constitution.

5. **Application Submission**: Prepare and submit an application for registration to the relevant
government authority or labor department. This application typically includes the union’s name,
constitution, list of members, and contact information.

6. **Scrutiny and Approval**: The government authority will review the application to ensure it
complies with all legal requirements. If everything is in order, they will approve the registration.
 7. **Certificate of Registration**: Once approved, the trade union will receive a certificate of
registration, which grants it legal recognition and rights to represent its members.

**Deregistration of a Trade Union**:

1. **Reasons for Deregistration**: Trade unions can be deregistered for various reasons, such as a
breach of their constitution, engaging in unlawful activities, or failing to meet minimum
membership requirements as per labor laws.

2. **Notice of Deregistration**: The relevant government authority will typically issue a notice of
intention to deregister the union. This notice may include reasons for the proposed
deregistration.

3. **Appeal**: The union may have the opportunity to appeal the decision or rectify any
deficiencies that led to the proposed deregistration. They can often provide evidence to
challenge the reasons cited.

4. **Deregistration Order**: If the government authority determines that the union’s issues have
not been adequately resolved or that it continues to operate unlawfully, they may issue a
deregistration order.

5. **Consequences of Deregistration**: Deregistration can have significant consequences, such as

the loss of legal recognition, the inability to engage in collective bargaining, and potential
liability for debts and legal actions.

6. **Winding Up**: The trade union may need to wind up its affairs, distribute its assets, and
settle any outstanding obligations.

It’s important to remember that the specific procedures and requirements for registration and
deregistration of trade unions can vary significantly from one country to another. Therefore, it’s crucial
to consult the labor laws and the relevant government agency in your jurisdiction for the most accurate
and up-to-date information on these processes. Legal advice or consultation with labor experts may also
be beneficial when dealing with trade union registration and deregistration.