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

Look at the Assertion on its own first. It says a charitable trust tried to escape Section 25-F retrenchment protection by arguing it is not an "industry" under Section 2(j), after sacking a Safai Karamchari for repeated absence. That is simply a factual account of a genuine and frequently seen defence raised by charitable and religious bodies, so there is nothing false in it, it is true.

Now look at the Reason by itself, setting the Assertion aside. It tells us the trust ran several kinds of activity, some commercial, alongside its charitable work, and that it employed people in an organised way with regular pay. Nothing here is disputed or implausible, it is a straightforward description of an organisation functioning on a reasonably large and systematic scale, so the Reason too stands as true.

The real question is whether the Reason actually explains the Assertion, or whether the two are just true statements sitting side by side. The law on "industry" has long moved past looking at motive or charitable purpose alone, the focus is on whether the operation is systematic, cooperative between employer and workers, and geared towards producing goods or services. A body that runs organised commercial ventures and hires paid staff meets exactly that description, and once it does, it cannot claim exemption merely by calling itself charitable. That is precisely why the trust's argument in the Assertion would not succeed, the very facts in the Reason are what defeat it. So the link is not a coincidence, the Reason is the working cause behind the outcome described in the Assertion.

Since both statements hold up independently and the second is shown to directly account for the first, the composite answer follows without needing any other option.
\[ \boxed{\text{Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).}} \]

Answer 2

Rather than starting from the statutory test, this approach treats each of the four listed options as a stand-alone claim about the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R), and checks each claim directly against the given facts for internal truth.

1. Option (A): "(A) is false, but (R) is true." For this to hold, the description of the trust disputing its "industry" status in (A) would have to be inaccurate. But (A) is simply a narration of an actual and recognised type of dispute, so there is no basis to call it false. The claim fails at its first half.
2. Option (B): "(A) is true, but (R) is false." This requires the organised, multi-activity, paid-employee description in (R) to be untrue or irrelevant. However, those facts are exactly the kind of evidence courts rely on to hold a body to be an "industry", so there is no reason to treat (R) as false. This claim fails at its second half.
3. Option (C): "Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)." Both halves check out - (A) accurately narrates the dispute, and (R) accurately describes organised commercial and charitable activity. The explanatory link also checks out, because it is precisely this organised character described in (R) that determines whether the trust succeeds or fails in the defence described in (A). All three conditions this option demands are satisfied.
4. Option (D): "Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)." The two truth claims here are fine, but the option additionally insists there is no explanatory connection between them. Since the organised activity in (R) is the operative reason the "not an industry" plea in (A) would be rejected, this option's denial of a link does not match the facts, so it fails on its final condition.

Testing each option as a self-contained claim, only the option asserting both statements are true with (R) explaining (A) survives every condition.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).