The new definition of employees has been widened under the Code on Social Security but does not include:

Match the following

1	The Code on Wages	A. Employees Compensation Act
2	Industrial Relations Code	B. The Equal Remuneration Act
3	The Code on Social Security	C. The Trade Unions Act
4	Code on Occupational Safety Health and Working Conditions	D. The Contract Labour Regulation Act

Select the correct option:

AILET LLM - 2025
Legal Studies
Labour & Industrial Law

View Solution

Match the following with the relevant provisions of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001:

I. Breeders Rights	A. Section 30
II. Researchers Rights	B. Section 41
III. Farmers Rights	C. Section 28
IV. Rights of Communities	D. Section 39

Select the correct option:

AILET LLM - 2025
Legal Studies
Labour & Industrial Law

View Solution

Who can be a Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?
Industrial Tribunal
Labour Commissioner
A Regional Labour Commissioner
Select the correct option:

AILET LLM - 2025
Legal Studies
Labour & Industrial Law

View Solution

Which of the following is true about Maternity Leave in India?
The leave is available to both private as well as government female employees.
leave is available to both private as well as government female employees if they are working in establishments that employ 10 or more people.
leave is not available to females adopting a child.
The Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, 2017 has increased the maximum period of leave from 12 weeks to 26 weeks.Select the correct option:

AILET LLM - 2025
Legal Studies
Labour & Industrial Law

View Solution

The landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Others, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1978, significantly influenced the interpretation of the term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case cantered on whether the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, a statutory body, could be classified as an industry under the Act, thereby making its employees eligible for certain protections and benefits. Prior to this case, the definition of ‘industry’ had been subject to varied interpretations, leading to confusion and inconsistency in its application. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, broadly defined ‘industry’ to include any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers and any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. However, this expansive definition left room for ambiguity, especially concerning statutory bodies and non-profit organizations. In this case, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board argued that it was not an industry, emphasizing its statutory duties and public welfare objectives. The Board contended that its primary purpose was to provide essential services, not to engage in profit-making activities typical of private enterprises. On the other hand, the respondents, including A. Rajappa, argued that the Board’s activities fell within the scope of an industry as defined by the Act, and thus, its employees should be entitled to the benefits and protections accorded to workers in industries. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, undertook a comprehensive analysis of the term ‘industry.’ The bench, led by Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, laid down a broad and inclusive definition of ‘industry.’ The Court asserted that what mattered was the nature of the activity and the relationship between the employer and the employees. This interpretation aimed to ensure that a wide range of workers, including those employed in public utility services, statutory bodies, and even some non-profit organizations, would be covered under the protective umbrella of the Industrial Disputes Act. The decision in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa & Others had far-reaching implications. It extended the scope of labour protections to a broader spectrum of workers, ensuring that more employees could benefit from the dispute resolution mechanisms and other safeguards provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. This judgment underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting labour laws to promote social justice and protect workers’ rights in a rapidly industrializing nation.
(Extract from Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa & Others, 1978 2 SCC)

CLAT PG - 2025
Legal Studies
Labour & Industrial Law

View Solution

(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage	(i) Section 13
(B) Registration of Hindu Marriage	(ii) Section 10
(C) Judicial Separation	(iii) Section 5
(D) Divorce	(iv) Section 8

I. Arbitration of excepted matters	1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386
II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses	2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066
III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz	3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943
IV. Arbitrability of fraud	4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222

I. Uti Possidetis	1. Principle in customary international law providing that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances since an agreement was concluded, a party to that agreement may withdraw from or terminate it.
II. Pacta Sunt Servanda	2. Two or more states equally exercise sovereignty with respect to a territory and its inhabitants.
III. Condominium	3. Doctrine that territory remains with the possessor state at the end of war or occupation unless otherwise determined by a treaty or an agreement.
IV. Rebus Sic Stantibus	4. Proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith.

The new definition of employees has been widened under the Code on Social Security but does not include:

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Labour & Industrial Law

Questions Asked in AILET LLM exam