Chapter 17 of 23 · Setting Up of Business, Industrial and Labour Laws

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

8 questionsasked in 5 of 6 attempts7 law changedOrder: by topic, latest first

Chapter weightageCh. 16Ch. 18
Questions per attemptTap a bar to filter
J25
June 2024Q. 6(d)5 marksSyllabus 2022Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Disputes Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for June 2024.

(d)In 2023, due to a severe economic recession, PR Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a mid-sized IT firm in India, decided to lay off a significant portion of its workforce. Among those affected was Y, a project manager who had been with the company for over seven years. Y was given a month’s notice before his termination. He believes that his termination was unjust and wants to challenge it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(1)Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can Y challenge his termination due to the economic recession ?

(2)What is the role of the government in such disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

(3)What remedies are available to Y if his claim is upheld ?

December 2023Q. 6A(iii)5 marksSyllabus 2022OR, alternative to Q. 6Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Disputes Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for December 2023.

(iii)Distinguish between ‘Lay off ’ and ‘Lock out’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

December 2025Q. 6(a)5 marksSyllabus 2022Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Disputes Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for December 2025.

(a)Due to dissatisfaction among workers, wage-related concerns and working conditions, a group of employees formed a trade union and submitted a charter of demands seeking revision of wages and improvements in leave benefits to Managing Director of Maharaja Jet Airways. The management did not recognize the union, claiming that a welfare committee was already addressing grievances. In protest, the trade union approached the Labour Officer, who forward the matter to Conciliation Officers. Since long, there being no resolution, the state government, in the interest of the industry, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for settlement of the disputes. The tenure of the tribunal is 2 months. Maharaja Jet Airways opposed the decision of the Government, contesting that as the proceeding for conciliation is pending, the matter cannot be referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

In view of above, answer the following :

(i)Whether Government can refer the matter to Industrial Tribunal without waiting for conclusion of conciliation proceeding ?

(ii)Can Industrial Tribunal continue office after expiry of 2 months, where the matter is unresolved ?

June 2024Q. 6A(iii)5 marksSyllabus 2022OR, alternative to Q. 6Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Disputes Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for June 2024.

(iii)What are the provisions with respect to Voluntary Reference of Disputes to Arbitration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

December 2023Q. 6(c)5 marksSyllabus 2022Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for December 2023.

(c)Explain in brief the provisions regarding payment of Subsistence Allowance under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

December 2024Q. 5(d)5 marksSyllabus 2022Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Disputes Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for December 2024.
Show the facts common to all parts of Q. 5

Hindustan Power Supply Ltd. (HPSL) is a wholly owned Government Company. The company employed a diverse workforce, including both full-time employees and contractual workers, who played important roles in the company’s success. However, as the company expanded, disparities in pay and benefits between these two groups began to surface.

Rajesh, holds a degree in Electrical Engineering (BE) from UGC recognized university having over 10 years of experience in the company. He has been working on projects alongside full-time employees and had been a key contributor to HPSL for over a decade. As an Assistant Engineer, he worked on numerous high-profile power generation and transmission projects, often collaborating closely with full-time employees. Despite his contributions being at par with those of his full-time colleagues, Rajesh’s compensation remained significantly lower.

He also lacked the job security and benefits, such as health insurance and paid leave, that were provided to full-time employees.

Over the years, the disparity between Rajesh’s compensation and that of his full-time counterparts, like Meera, a full-time Executive Engineer, who joined the company around the same time as Rajesh, enjoying higher pay, benefits, and job security became more pronounced. Meera, who had great respect for Rajesh’s skills and work ethic, was aware of the inequity but felt uncertain about how to address it within the corporate structure. Meanwhile, Rajesh’s growing frustration began to affect his motivation and sense of loyalty to the company.

One evening, after discussing his situation with a friend, Rajesh was introduced to Anjali, a renowned Advocate in service matters and employee related issues. Rajesh shared his concerns with Anjali, who informed him about a significant legal precedent in India– ‘Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P.’, whereas Hon’ble Apex Court passed the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Anjali also referenced the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors., in which the Court primarily addressed the regularization of temporary employees and strongly affirmed the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” According to this principle, Rajesh, who was performing the same duties as full-time employees, was entitled to equal compensation, regardless of his contractual status.

Empowered by this information, Rajesh decided to take action. With Anjali’s guidance, he and several other contractual workers in the company submitted a formal grievance to Patel, the Chief General Manager, Human Resources of the company. The grievance outlined their concerns about the pay disparity and referenced the various judgements of Supreme Court, requesting the company to review its compensation practices to ensure fairness.

Patel, a seasoned HR professional with a strong commitment to ethical business practices, took the grievance seriously. He initiated a comprehensive review of the company’s compensation policies and consulted with legal experts to understand the implications of the judgements of Supreme Court with respect to ‘Equal pay for Equal work’ in the corporate context. Recognizing that maintaining the current pay disparity was both legally risky and ethically questionable, Patel decided to take corrective action.

Over the next few weeks, Patel led the development of a new compensation policy in the company. The policy introduced a standardized pay scale for all employees, ensuring that those performing similar roles received equal pay, irrespective of their employment status. This change was communicated transparently across the company, with efforts made to address any concerns and ensure a smooth transition. The Management also took the steps for registration under Atal Beemit Vyakti Kalyan Yojna (ABVKY).

The implementation of the new pay structure had a positive impact on the company’s workforce.

Contractual workers, who had long felt undervalued, now experienced a renewed sense of commitment and motivation. Rajesh, in particular, felt a deep sense of satisfaction and loyalty towards the Company, knowing that his contributions were finally being recognized and rewarded fairly. Meera and other full-time employees also welcomed the change, appreciating the company’s commitment to fairness.

Under Patel’s leadership, the Company not only resolved the pay disparity but also set a precedent for other companies in the industry. The company’s proactive approach to addressing the issue enhanced employee morale, reduced employee turnover, and reinforced its reputation as a fair and progressive employer.

In view of the above, answer the following :

(d)Rajesh and other contractual workers decided to go on strike. However, the company is in public utility service. Describe the prohibition of strikes and lock-outs in public utility service.

June 2026Q. 6(b)5 marksSyllabus 2022

(b)XYZ Ltd. is engaged in the manufacturing of heavy capital machinery and employs approximately 740 workers due to its labour-intensive operations. Until 31st March 2026, the establishment did not have any trade union. In May 2026, a group of 47 workers from the Finishing and Warehouse Section decided to form a trade union and submit an application for its registration.

Examine the statutory criteria for registration of a new trade union under Section 6 of the Industrial Relations Code 2020 in the context of their proposal.

December 2024Q. 6A(iv)5 marksSyllabus 2022OR, alternative to Q. 6Law changed
Law changed after this attempt: The answer is based on the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which stands repealed and subsumed into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (all four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025; Lesson 17 of the current study material). The section numbers and some provisions in this answer are those of the old Act; check the IR Code for the current provisions. The answer below reflects the law as it stood for December 2024.

(iv)Enumerate the matters that need to be provided in Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

No questions in this chapter match these filters.