Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. Section 5 is extracted below: “5. Power to exempt during public emergency. — In any case of public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section ‘public emergency’ means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.” (emphasis supplied) The notification in its relevant part is extracted below:
“... NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the ‘Factories Act’ PART B Government of Gujarat hereby directs that all the factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be exempted from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. of adult workers under section 51, section 54, and section 55 and section 56 with the following conditions from 20th April till 19th July 2020, –
(1) No adult worker shall be allowed or required to work in a factory for more than twelve hours in any day and Seventy Two hours in any week.
(2) The Periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed six hours and that no worker shall work for more than six hours before he has had an interval of rest of at least half an hour.
(3) No Female workers shall be allowed or required to work in a factory between 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
(4) Wages shall be in a proportion of the existing wages (e.g. If wages for eight hours are 80 Rupees, then proportionate wages for twelve hours will be 120 Rupees).”
[Extract from judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. The State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2020, (hereafter ‘GMS’)]
Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 provides for the power of exemption from certain provisions of the Act due to the occurrence of a public emergency. In GMS, the Supreme Court held that:- Situations of grave emergency require an actual threat to the security of the state.
- Emergency powers can be used to avert the threat posed by war, external aggression or internal disturbance.
- Emergency powers must not be used for any other purpose.
- Situations of grave emergency require an actual threat to the security of the state.
- Emergency powers can be used to avert the threat posed by war, external aggression or internal disturbance.
- Emergency powers must not be used for any other purpose.
- Only i and iii are correct
- Only ii is correct
- Only i and ii are correct
- All the above statements are correct
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
In order for a Proclamation of Emergency to be made under Article 352 of the Constitution of India, the President must be satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened:
- By war or external aggression or internal disturbance
- By war or external aggression or financial instability
- By war or external aggression or armed rebellion
- By war or armed rebellion or internal disturbance
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Following the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, in order for a Proclamation of Emergency to be issued, such decision has:
- To be taken by the Prime Minister and conveyed to the President
- To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by both Houses of Parliament
- To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and communicated to the President in writing
- To be taken by the Council of Ministers of Cabinet rank and approved by at least half the State Legislatures
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Article 355 of the Constitution of India casts a duty upon the Union to protect every state against, inter alia, internal disturbance. The Supreme Court has noted that the Sarkaria Commission recognised a range of situations which could amount to internal disturbance, including:
- Situations of financial exigencies
- Breaches of public peace
- Inefficient administration
- None of the above
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2920, held that the duty of the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance extends to:
- Situations where there are large-scale cases of illegal migrants from other countries
- Situations where there are large-scale cases of migration from other parts of India
- Cases of external aggression which are similar to ‘war’
- None of the above
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
In deciding whether the CoVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown imposed by the Central Government to contain the spread of the pandemic, have created a public emergency as defined by the explanation to Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 the Supreme Court in GMS held:- The economic slowdown caused by the pandemic constitutes a public emergency.
- The situation created by the Covid-19 pandemic was similar to a national emergency caused by external aggression or war.
- The economic slowdown created by the CoVID-19 pandemic qualifies as an internal disturbance threatening the security of the state.
- The economic slowdown caused by the pandemic constitutes a public emergency.
- The situation created by the Covid-19 pandemic was similar to a national emergency caused by external aggression or war.
- The economic slowdown created by the CoVID-19 pandemic qualifies as an internal disturbance threatening the security of the state.
- Only i and iii are correct
- Only ii and iii are correct
- Only i and ii are correct
- None of the above statements are correct
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1970 SCR 288, and later cases, has indicated that matters affecting law and order can be determined:
- Not by the nature of the act alone e.g., a case of stabbing of one person by another
- The degree to which public tranquility is disturbed
- Whether the even tempo of life of a community continues undisturbed or not
- All the above
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The Supreme Court has indicated that matters that affect public order are to be determined:- By looking at the nature of the act, how violent it is irrespective of its context.
- The degree and effect any action has on the life of the community.
- By consideration of factors related to the maintenance of law and order.
- By looking at the nature of the act, how violent it is irrespective of its context.
- The degree and effect any action has on the life of the community.
- By consideration of factors related to the maintenance of law and order.
- Only i and iii are correct
- Only ii is correct
- Only i and ii are correct
- All the above statements are correct
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The Factories Act, 1948, stipulates the maximum number of hours that can be worked per week and also that overtime wages need to be double the normal wage rate. In GMS the exemption relied upon by State government to extend the working hours to 12 hours a day and at the usual wage rate without payment of overtime across all factories was deemed to be:- Justified in view of the grave emergency cause by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Violative of the rule of law.
- Violative of just and humane conditions of work.
- Justified in view of the grave emergency cause by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Violative of the rule of law.
- Violative of just and humane conditions of work.
- Only i and iii are correct
- Only ii is correct
- Only ii and iii are correct
- All the above statements are correct
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The rationale of the Factories Act, 1948 in providing double the wage rate for periods of overtime work is based on:- Compensating the worker for the extra strain on their health in doing overtime work.
- Enabling the worker to maintain proper standard of health and stamina.
- Protecting the worker against exploitation.
- Compensating the worker for the extra strain on their health in doing overtime work.
- Enabling the worker to maintain proper standard of health and stamina.
- Protecting the worker against exploitation.
- i, ii, and iii are correct
- Only i and iii are correct
- Only ii is correct
- Only ii and iii are correct
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Top Questions on Labour & Industrial Law
- The definition of ‘Wages’ under the Code on Wages, 2019 includes
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Which of the following is not a Social Security Organisation under the Code on Social Security, 2020?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Which of the following statement is false regarding settlement of matter through conciliation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Who is not a domestic worker under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Under the Factories Act, 1948 which of the following statements is correct about overtime and its calculation?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Labour & Industrial Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts