CLAT MCQs on Labour & Industrial Law: CLAT Questions for Practice with Solutions

CLAT Questions

• 1.

  Principle: Trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workers or between workmen and workmen, or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person. Disputes connected with the non-employment must be understood to include a dispute connected with a dismissal, discharge, removal or retrenchment of a workman. Facts: ‘X’, an employee in a sugar factory, raised a dispute against ‘Y’, the employer, through trade union regarding certain matters connected with his suspension from the employment.

  • Matters connected with suspension can amount to a trade dispute
  • Matters connected with suspension cannot amount to a trade dispute
  • Only after dismissal, Matters connected with suspension can amount to a trade dispute
  • None of the above is correct
    
  View Solution

  ---

• 2.

  Principle: Strike is a collective stoppage of work by workmen undertaken in order to bring pressure upon those who depend on the sale or use of the products of work; whereas, lock-out is a weapon in the hands of the employer, similar to that of strike in the armory of workmen, used for compelling persons employed by him to accept his terms or conditions of or affecting employment. While in closure there is permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof, in lay-off an employer, who is willing to employ, fails, refused, or is unable to provide employment for reasons beyond his control. Facts: Workmen of a textile factory went on strike as per law, demanding he payment of bonus, Employer of the factory refused to pay any extra allowances, including bonus, and besides he closed down the factory till the strike was stopped.

  • Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to strike
  • Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to lay-off
  • Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to lock-out
  • Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to closure
    
  View Solution

  ---

• 3.

  Principles: - A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. - In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
  Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
  

  • 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.
  • 'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
  • 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not within the course of his employment.
  • 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.
    
  View Solution

  ---

• 4.

  Principles:
  1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
  2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
  Facts: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers daily. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such customers. After a couple of years, Syndicate Bank terminated Nandan’s service. Unaware of this, Nagamma continued to hand over her savings to Nandan, who misappropriated them. She realized this after three months and filed a complaint against the bank.
  Possible decisions:
  (a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma
  (b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma
  (c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence
  Possible reasons:
  (i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after termination.
  (ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
  (iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the bank about Nandan.
  (iv) The bank is entitled to expect customers to know the actual position.
  

  • (b) (i)
  • (c) (ii)
  • (a) (iii)
  • (b) (iv)
    
  View Solution

  ---

• 5.

  Principle: An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
  In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
  Facts: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started 1 ate from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
  

  • Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.
  • Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.
  • Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.
  • Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.
    
  View Solution

  ---

• 6.

  Principles:
  1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
  2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in context.
  3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
  Facts: Rama Bhai, a widow, opened an SB account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew Keshav, who worked as a clerk in the bank. After a year, Keshav was dismissed from service. Unaware, Rama Bhai continued giving him her savings, which he misappropriated. She later sought compensation from the bank.
  Possible decisions:
  (a) Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai
  (b) Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai
  (c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence
  Possible reasons:
  (i) Keshav was not an employee when the fraud was committed.
  (ii) The bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav.
  (iii) The bank must take care of vulnerable customers.
  (iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav.
  

  • (a) (iii)
  • (c) (iv)
  • (b) (ii)
  • (b) (i)
    
  View Solution