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

One reliable check here is to ask whether the outcome described in the Assertion would still make sense without the facts stated in the Reason.

1. Removing (R) from the picture: If the trust had been a simple, purely charitable body with no organised commercial ventures, no hired staff, and no systematic remuneration, its argument that it was not an "industry" might well have succeeded. It is specifically the facts in (R), commercial ventures, organised hiring, and proper remuneration, that make the argument in (A) fail.
2. Effect on option selection: Because the Assertion's fate depends directly on the facts stated in the Reason, the Reason cannot be dismissed as merely a separate true fact; it functions as the explanation for why the trust's position, recorded in the Assertion, did not succeed.
3. Testing "(A) is false, but (R) is true": The Assertion is simply a factual account of what the trust argued and why; nothing about it is inaccurate, so this option fails at the first step.
4. Testing "(A) is true, but (R) is false": The Reason's description of organised commercial activity with proper remuneration is exactly the kind of feature that expands the definition of "industry," so there is no basis to call it false.
5. Testing "both true but (R) not the explanation": Since the but-for test shows the Reason's facts are precisely what caused the Assertion's outcome, denying that connection would misdescribe the relationship between the two statements.

Since the but-for test confirms that the facts in the Reason are exactly what caused the outcome in the Assertion, the two statements are linked by explanation, and the correct answer is that both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Answer 2

Another lens for this question is to think about the policy reason labour law defines "industry" so broadly in the first place, and see whether that policy is what links (A) and (R).

1. Underlying policy: Labour welfare legislation defines "industry" broadly precisely so that organisations cannot escape obligations toward their workers simply by describing themselves as charitable, if in substance they function like ordinary commercial or service-providing enterprises.
2. Applying the policy to (A): The trust's argument recorded in (A), that it was not an "industry" and therefore owed no obligation under Section 25-F, is exactly the kind of argument this policy is designed to defeat when the organisation's actual conduct looks commercial and organised.
3. Applying the policy to (R): The facts in (R), namely multiple organised activities, commercial ventures, and properly remunerated staff, are precisely the substance-over-form indicators that the policy looks for when deciding whether an entity is really an "industry" despite calling itself charitable.
4. Linking (A) and (R): Because the policy that expands the definition of "industry" is triggered by exactly the facts stated in (R), and those facts are what defeats the argument recorded in (A), (R) is not a separate coincidental truth but the operative explanation for why (A)'s outcome occurred.
5. Ruling out the remaining options: (A) is not false, since it accurately records the trust's position and its failure; (R) is not false, since organised commercial activity with proper remuneration is a recognised marker of an "industry."

Viewed through the policy that prevents organisations from escaping labour obligations through mere charitable labelling, (R) clearly functions as the explanation for (A), so the correct answer is that both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).