Question

Assertion (A): The respondent was engaged as a Safai Karamchari in a charitable trust. The dispute originated when he was terminated due to repeated absence from duty. The trust challenged the award on the grounds that it was not an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the worker was not a workman, making Section 25-F inapplicable. Reason (R): The trust engaged in multifarious activities including commercial ventures and hired employees for commercial and charitable activities in an organized manner with proper remuneration. In the context of the above Assertion and Reason under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is correct?

• A. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
• B. Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• C. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• D. (A) is true, but (R) is false.

Hint:

For Industrial Disputes Act questions, remember the famous rule from: Bangalore Water Supply Case If there is:

• Systematic activity,

• Employer-employee cooperation,

• Production or service activity,
the organization is likely to be an Industry, even if it is charitable.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understand the facts.
A Safai Karamchari in a charitable trust was terminated for repeated absence. The trust said it was not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so the man was not a workman and Section 25-F did not apply. We must judge the Assertion (A) and Reason (R).

Step 2: Recall the leading case.
The meaning of industry was read very widely in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa. The court held that even charitable bodies can be an industry if they run organized activities with the cooperation of employers and employees to produce or supply goods or services.

Step 3: Test the Assertion.
Assertion A states the facts: the trust argued it was charitable, not an industry, so Section 25-F did not apply. This was indeed the trust's contention, so A is true.

Step 4: Test the Reason.
Reason R says the trust ran many organized activities, including commercial ventures, hired employees, and paid proper remuneration. These features meet the tests in the Bangalore Water Supply case for being an industry, so R is true.

Step 5: See the link between A and R.
The trust's argument FAILED exactly because of the facts in R. Its organized and commercial activities brought it within the definition of industry, despite being charitable. So R explains why the trust could not escape labour law, making R the correct explanation of A.

Step 6: Reach the answer.
Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A. So a charitable body does not escape labour law if it runs organized commercial activities.

\[ \boxed{\text{Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).}} \]