1. What are the influences of International Labour standards on Indian Labour legislation’s? Critically examine.
2. Discuss the provisions relating to hazardous processes (Chapter IV A) of Factories Act, 1948.
3. What are the obligations of Principal Employer under Contract Labour (R&A) Act of 1970? Are they strictly enforced?
4. What are the provisions of Retrenchment in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? What are the recommendations of Second National Commission on Labour retrenchment? Discuss
5. Briefly discuss the concept and process of Domestic Enquiry in Industry.
6. Discuss the concept of "arising out of and in course of employment" stipulated in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Give examples to make your arguments convincing.
7. What are authorised deductions given in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936? Why are such provisions made in the Act?
8. Write a short notes on any three of the following:
a) Eligibility for Gratuity
b) Equal pay for equal work
c) Charge Sheet
d) Award and Settlement
e) Employees Pension Scheme, 1995
SECTION B
Please read the case given below and answer the questions given at the end.
Mr. Nandkishore is a workman employed in the dispatch department of a cement factory. The factory is located in one of the towns of a politically sensitive state. It employs about 1,500 employees besides the managerial staff. The annual turnover of the company is around Rs. 150 crores and its capacity utilization if 75 per cent.
The factory has three unions besides a Security Staff Association and Management Association. For eight years, only one union has been recognized, on the basis of its "claim" that it has the largest following of workmen. Continued recognition of a single union led to strained relations between the two recognized unions and the Management and also among the unions themselves.
Mr. Nandkishore is an office bearer of one of the unrecognized unions. The industrial relations situation on the factory has been fluctuating from periods of harmony to periods of disturbances.
On December 10, 1988, Mr. Nandkishore dell down from the ladder, while working during the second shift. This accident resulted in serious injury to his right arm. He was admitted in a Government hospital for treatment. An accident report was sent to the commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, to determine the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid to Mr. Nandkishore for the loss of any earning capacity. Meanwhile, the union in which he is an officer bearer requested the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance to the injured workman for covering medical expenses. It also stated that the above amount may be deducted from the compensation which Mr. Nandkishore may get, according to the Commissioner’s decision, after obtaining a written undertaking from the union that this amount will be deducted from the compensation payable. The union also agreed to this condition. It also arranged for the release of Rs. 2,000 from the Labour Welfare Fund.
The Medical Officer treating the workman submitted a report in February 1989. The Medical Report did not mention any kind of disablement (Full/Partial, temporary/Permanent) to the workman. The Commissioner. After processing the case and styling the report, ruled tat the workman, Mr. Nandkishore shall be paid only half-monthly wages for these two months against his request for compensation, as there was no permanent on partial disablement.
On Receipt of this report from the Commissioner, the Management asked the workman to repay Rs. 3,000 given as the advance and requested the union to do the needful in this regard. The union, however, contended that since the accident occurred during and in the course of employment, the Management must treat it as ex-gratia payment and payment and that it should not demand its repayment as the money was used for treatment. The Management, however, pointed out that at the time of taking advance, both the union and workman had agreed that this amount will be recovered from the compensation payable and since no compensation is payable, the workman should pay back the advance. The Management, further pointed out that it cannot waive the to recovery of the above advance as it is bound by the rules.
The union however insisted that Management should not proceed on the recovery of advance from the workman. The Management also heard ruinous that the said union may stage a ‘show down" over his issue.