Court Room Exercise

Semester VII

Subject: Labor Law - 1

INDEX

Sl No Moot Propositions Roll Numbers Page Number

1 Proposition 1 1

2 Proposition 2 2

3 Proposition 3 3

4 Proposition 4 4

5 Proposition 5 5

6 Proposition 6 6

Session: August December, 2016

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 1

Tikaram was engaged as an apprentice in the Jharkhand State Sugar corporation Ltd. on a
monthly stipend for getting training of general clerk . A contract for this purpose was made
between them. As Mr. Tikaram could not get full knowledge during his training he requested for
one more year of training in the said corporation. When that period came to an end he raised a
dispute which was referred for adjudication to Labor Court. The management contended that he
was not an employee. But Labor Court rejected the contention and said that initially he was
engaged as an apprentice but later on he was engaged as employee so the termination of his
service amounted to retrenchment. The Coporation files an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and decided
case laws on the issues to defend your client

1
 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 2

The workmen of RK News Papers Private Ltd. were appointed in the respondent company as
copy holders in the year January 2000. They were entrusted with the duties of proof readers and
therefore they claimed that they should be treated as such. In March 2001 the management
issued an order where the two workmen were described as copy holders. Inspite of this order,
the management continued to give the workmen the work of proof reading. The dispute arose in
April 2005 when the management refused to treat them as proof readers. The Union authorities
initiated the conciliation proceeding. The dispute was espoused by the Ranchi Union of
Journalists. 25% of the working journalists in the respondent company were the members of the
union. It was established that at the relevant time there was no union of working journalists
employed by the respondent company.

Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and decided
case laws on the issues to defend your client

2
 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 3

MK Seva Sadan is a charitable Institution in Ranchi employing 100 workmen. Mr. Jagdish was
appointed as a foreman in that Institute on January 2014 with the salary Rs. 10000. His function
was to supervise and direct the other workers. Some times he was also provided with the clerical
duties. On March 2015 due to pressure of work he could not perform some clerical duties which
resulted in some financial loss for the institution. The management dismissed him on the ground
of negligence of duty after holding a domestic enquiry. The Ranchi employees union supported
him and claimed for his reinstatement with backwages. The Respodent Challenged that This
institution is not an industry.
Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and decided
case laws on the issues to defend your client

3
 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 4

M/s. T K Jalan is an establishment where the workmen have no union of their own and some or
all of them join the union of another establishment belonging to the same industry. Out of 55
employees of the respondent, 25 had become members of a Trade Union. Later, these 25
employees were dismissed by an order passed on the same day. The Union took up the cause
and ultimately the dispute was referred to the Tribunal, where the respondent raised the
preliminary objection that the reference was invalid inasmuch is the dispute referred to the
Tribunal was not an industrial Dispute but was merely an individual dispute as they were not
having their own Trade Union to support this matter.

Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and decided
case laws on the issues to defend your client

4
 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 5

In the year 2006 The Jharkhand Bank employs Babulal to assist and help the Examiners of
Coins/notes as a tikka mazdoor on daily wages. He was not a matriculate at that time but after
joining this work he passed matriculation. A confidential circular dated March 2008 was issued
by the Bank stating that non-matriculates cannot be retained in the List of tikka mazdoor. He
was not given work from April 2008 and his name was struck off from the list of tikka mazdoor.
He failed to intimate his qualification to the Bank in response to a letter in this regard. On
reference the Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim of employee. The trade union raised an
appeal in the Apex Court in favour of Babulal.
Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and decided
case laws on the issues to defend your client

5
 Labor Law - 1

Moot Proposition 6

Mr. Kapil, as a temporary employee was employed through M/S JP Manpower Enterprises, by
KK Infotech Ltd Ranchi Jharkhand. The Placement Agency had been paying all remuneration to
him. He was responsible to dispatch official mails to various offices and also looked after the
gardens at the residences of some managers. He was subjected to the control and direction of
the Personnel Manager. He was paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 11000, which was being
deposited with the placement agency. On 15 March 2012 he was designated as an apprentice
trainee (office assistant) for a period of two yeas, but there was no change in his job description.
He was also engaged in carrying out routine works of the office. On 15 February 2013 General
Manager recommended to appoint Mr. Kapil on permanent position in the company. On 30
April 2014, he was informed that due to unsatisfactory performance, his service was terminated.
Further the company rejected the recommendation of the Personnel Manager. He was not given
any show cause notice and no enquiry was conducted. He requested the management to renew
his contract and appoint him on permanent position, which was rejected by the management.
Mr. Kapil raised an issue before the conciliation officer that termination of his service was
contrary to the provisions of the I D Act, 1947. Conciliation officer submitted failure report to
the appropriate government. On 30 May 2014, the appropriate government referred the dispute
to Labor Court. Mr. Kapil contended that he was a workman and had completed continuous
service of 240 days in the company, so the termination of service was contrary to the provisions
of the ID Act. Further he prayed for reinstatement of service along with back wages. The
company contended that he was not a workman but a trainee governed by the provision of the
Apprentice Act 1961 and the placement agency is responsible for the payment of all
remuneration.

Frame issues. Prepare your arguments according to the relevant statutory provisions and
decided case laws on the issues to defend your client