National Law School of Indian University (NLSIU) 2006 B.A L.L.B ADMISSION TEST – ., LL.B(HONS.) PROGRAMME - Question Paper

(a) Mr. Banuchander can take the money only if Ms. Nilanjana provide the amount out of her own will.
(b) Mr. Banuchander can go to the Court and file a suit explaining the reasons for delay. The court will accept the identical.
(c) This is a bad legal regulations and the constitutionality has to be questioned in the High Court.
(d) Mr. Banuchander can use the services of goondas to recover the amount as it is his hard earned money.

102. Principle: Minimum wage for workers is fixed by the State and they shall be paid under all circumstances. Minimum wages must be paid even if the employer is incurring losses.

Facts: Mr. Narayan is running a small scale steel fabricating industry. He is incurring losses continuously for the last 2 years. His workers were also aware of this and were sympathetic to this. On 1.4.2006, the employer Mr. Narayan and all his workers entered into a settlement wherein they voluntarily agreed to receive Rs.200/-less than the minimum wages fixed per month by the State. According to the Settlement, Mr. Narayan is making the payments. The workers are not unhappy as they could retain their jobs by avoiding the closure of the industry.
(a) The settlement is perfectly valid as the workers have no complaint about the reduction of wages.
(b) The settlement is not valid as it is contrary to legal regulations.
(c) In a liberalised economy, the employer should be able to compete in the market. At the identical time he should see that his workers are happy.
(d) The workers are very understanding persons as they could understand the difficulties of Mr. Narayan, their employer.

103. Principle: Anybody with an intention to reason damage to the public or to any person, causes destruction of any property, he is stated to have committed the offence of Mischief.

Facts: The workers of Premium Private Ltd. Co. were on strike demanding higher bonus. In the course of the strike, a worker by name Mr. Chandra Kumar has thrown stones at the company and damaged the costly glass windows.
(a) Mr. Chandrakumar was justified in his act as the employer company behaved unreasonably by not paying the bonus properly.
(b) Mr. Chandrakumar was on strike along with other workers. Hence he has immunity from all actions.
(c) Mr. Chandrakumar has committed the offence of Mischief.
(d) Mr. Chandrakumar has not committed the offence of mischief as he has only expressed his freedom of speech and expression which is a Fundamental Right.
104. Principle: Agreement to do an impossible act is void. The parties to such agreement will not have any rights or duties under such an agreement.

Earning:   Approval pending.