Question

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A). 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. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• B. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
• C. Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• D. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

Hint:

Bangalore Water Supply Case: If an activity is organized, systematic, and uses paid labor, it is an "industry"—even if it's a charity!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the dispute.
A Safai Karamchari working in a charitable trust was terminated for repeated absence. The trust argued it is not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so the worker is not a workman and Section 25-F does not apply.

Step 2: Read the Assertion (A).
(A) describes this exact challenge - a charitable employer trying to say it is not an industry to avoid worker protections. This is a real and common kind of legal challenge, so (A) is true.

Step 3: Read the Reason (R).
(R) says the trust ran many activities, including commercial ventures, hired employees in an organized way and paid proper remuneration. These facts about organized, systematic activity are true.

Step 4: Recall the Triple Test.
The Bangalore Water Supply case gave the Triple Test: systematic activity, cooperation between employer and employees, and producing goods or services. If these are met, even a charitable body is an industry. The facts in (R) meet this test.

Step 5: Does (R) explain (A).
Because the trust runs organized activities (the point in R), it does fall within industry under Section 2(j). That is precisely why the trust's argument in (A) would fail. So (R) explains and answers (A).

Step 6: Conclude.
Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
\[ \boxed{\text{Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).}} \]