All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 5-V Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

The correct option is A: SAIL vs. National Union Water front Workers.

This is because in this case, the Supreme Court held that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not envisage the automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer upon the abolition of contract labour system in any establishment. The court observed that the Act only regulates the conditions of service of contract labour and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances, but does not create any employment relationship between the contract labour and the principal employer. The court also clarified that the earlier judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union & Ors, which had suggested the possibility of such absorption, was not a binding precedent and was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.

Option B is incorrect because in Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union & Ors, the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule that contravention of contract labour Act would create employment relationship between contract labour and principal employer. Rather, the court granted relief to the contract labour on humanitarian grounds and directed their absorption by the principal employer, considering that they had been working for a long time and had acquired sufficient skills and experience. The court also noted that this was an exceptional case and should not be treated as a precedent for other cases.

Option C is incorrect because in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa, the Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of contravention of contract labour Act or its effect on the employment relationship between contract labour and principal employer. Rather, the court dealt with the issue of whether the activities of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board were industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether its employees were entitled to invoke the provisions of that Act for resolving their disputes. The court held that the board was an industry and its employees were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Option D is incorrect because in State of U.P vs. Jai Bir Singh, the Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of contravention of contract labour Act or its effect on the employment relationship between contract labour and principal employer. Rather, the court dealt with the issue of whether a person who had been appointed as a daily wager by a contractor could claim regularization or permanency in service under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001. The court held that such a person could not claim regularization or permanency as he was not directly appointed by the state government or any statutory authority, but by a contractor who was engaged by them for carrying out certain works.