About these notes
These notes are a memory toolkit for Labour Law II. Instead of learning each topic as a separate list, they connect the material so that one piece brings back the next.
Every labour law exam answer follows the same chain: Article (Fundamental Right) → Directive Principle (DPSP) → Case → Code/Section. The notes cover the constitutional base and the major Acts tested in previous years' questions: wages, bonus, gratuity, the Employees' Compensation Act (EC Act), ESI, EPF, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CLRA), the Factories Act and MGNREGA. They then cover the four Labour Codes (the Code on Wages, 2019 (CoW); the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code); the Code on Social Security, 2020 (CoSS); and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code)), the leading cases, welfare schemes, and the doctrines and interpretation rules used in answers.
Master trick: learn in theme chains
Each theme links a Fundamental Right, a Directive Principle, a leading case and the relevant Code or Act. Most of the syllabus fits into this one table.
| Theme | Fundamental Right | DPSP | Case | Code/Act |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Art. 14 | Art. 39(d) | Randhir Singh; Jagjit Singh | Code on Wages (absorbed the Equal Remuneration Act) |
| Minimum wage | Art. 14, 23 | Art. 39(a), 43 | Bijoy Cotton Mills; Chandra Bhavan Boarding | Code on Wages, 2019 / Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (MWA), ss. 12 and 25 |
| Forced labour | Art. 23 | Art. 43 (living wage) | Asiad (PUDR); Bandhua Mukti Morcha | Code on Wages (minimum wage as the floor against "begar") |
| Maternity | Art. 15 | Art. 42 | MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) | CoSS Chapter VI / Maternity Benefit Act |
| Livelihood | Art. 21 | Art. 39(a), 41 | Olga Tellis | CoSS (social security) |
| Health and safety | Art. 21 | Art. 39(e), 47 | CERC v. Union of India | OSH Code, ESI, Factories Act |
| Dignity at work / dismissal | Art. 14, 21 | Art. 42, 43 | Nergesh Meerza; D.K. Yadav | IR Code |
| Injury at work | Art. 21 | Art. 39(e), 41 | Saurashtra Salt; Mackinnon Mackenzie; Roshan Deen | CoSS Chapters VII and IV (formerly EC Act, 1923 / ESI Act, 1948) |
| Reward for service | Art. 21 | Art. 43 | Bakshish Singh v. Darshan Engineering | Payment of Gratuity Act / CoSS Chapter V |
| Contract labour | Art. 14, 21 | Art. 39(a) | None listed | CLRA Act, 1970, ss. 20–21 |
Updated: the table listed Article 43 as a Fundamental Right for "Reward for service". The correct position is that Article 43 (living wage) is a Directive Principle in Part IV of the Constitution, so only Article 21 belongs in the Fundamental Right column. Source: The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, as on 1 May 2024).
Updated: the table gave only the EC Act, 1923 and the ESI Act, 1948 for "Injury at work". The correct position is that both Acts were repealed by Section 164(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 with effect from 21 November 2025; employees' compensation is now in Chapter VII and ESI in Chapter IV of the Code. Section numbers of the old Acts used in these notes describe the pre-Code position. Source: Ministry of Labour and Employment notification S.O. 5319(E), 21 November 2025.
Memory hook: "FDCC". Before writing any answer, say FDCC: Fundamental Right, DPSP, Case, Code/Section. Going through all four every time prevents a bare answer without citations.
Fundamental Rights: number hooks
- Articles 14, 15 and 16, the "Equality Trio": 14 = everyone is equal; 15 = no discrimination on the basis of sex; 16 = government jobs.
- Article 19(1)(c) = Clubs (unions); Article 19(1)(g) = Gainful work (trade or profession).
- Article 21 = the umbrella. What it covers: "LHDSS" = Livelihood, Health, Dignity, Safe conditions, Speedy trial.
- Articles 23 and 24, the "exploitation pair": 23 = forced labour/begar (think of the Asiad workers); 24 = children below 14 (24 → 14).
- Articles 32 and 226 = the enforcement door. Article 32 goes to the Supreme Court; Article 226 goes to the High Court.
Directive Principles: the ladder
- Article 37: "not enforceable, but fundamental". This is the starting line.
- Article 38: the welfare state. This is the goal.
- Article 39 = "A-D-E-F":
- Adequate livelihood
- Dual (equal) pay
- Exhausted workers' health
- Future of children
- Article 47 = food and health.
Articles 41 → 42 → 43 → 43A: climbing a ladder
| Article | Rung of the ladder |
|---|---|
| 41 | Get a job |
| 42 | Good conditions of work (plus maternity relief) |
| 43 | A good wage |
| 43A | A seat at the management table |
Constitutional structure
- Concurrent List, Entries 22, 23 and 24 = "D-S-W" (Don't Skip Welfare):
- Entry 22: Disputes
- Entry 23: Security (social security)
- Entry 24: Welfare (PF, ESI, maternity)
- Union List, Entry 55 = Mines. Picture "55 metres deep underground".
- Article 254 = the Union wins. A State law is void only to the extent of the repugnancy.
Wages: the exam's favourite triad
Wages produce more previous years' questions than any other topic. Learn the three wages as a ladder: each rung brings more welfare for the worker and more cost for the employer.
Three wages, one ladder
| Wage | What it is | Key feature |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum wage | The bare survival floor | Absolute duty: must be paid even if the employer is running at a loss (Section 12, MWA/CoW) |
| Fair wage | Above the minimum | Tied to the industry's own capacity to pay and its productivity |
| Living wage | The aspirational top | A decent standard of living, comforts and provision for old age; the actual goal of Article 43 |
Section 12 and Section 25
- Section 12 = the duty to pay the minimum wage.
- Section 25 = the shield. Any agreement to pay below the minimum wage is void to that extent. A worker can never "agree away" the floor.
Farhan agrees in writing to work for less than the notified minimum wage. Under Section 25 the agreement is void to that extent, and under Section 12 the employer must still pay him the minimum wage, even if the business is running at a loss.
Floor wage (Code on Wages, 2019)
The Centre fixes a national floor wage. No State may fix its own minimum wage below it. Think of it as the "floor under the floor".
Leading cases
Bijoy Cotton Mills v. State of Ajmer: a mill owner challenged the Minimum Wages Act as violating Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade). Held: the Act is valid. It is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the public and the worker. Principle: starvation wages defeat the very freedom to trade fairly.
Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging v. State of Mysore: a lodge owner's case. Held: the Court confirmed the same logic as in Bijoy Cotton Mills. Principle: paying a fair/minimum wage is not confiscation of property; it is the price of employing labour.
Memory hook: "Survive, Strive, Thrive". Minimum wage = Survive (bare floor, absolute duty). Fair wage = Strive (tied to the industry's own effort and capacity). Living wage = Thrive (the DPSP goal: comfort and provision for old age). Saying the three words in order brings back the whole ladder.
Bonus: the surplus chain
Chain to remember: available → allocable → set-on/set-off.
| Concept | Rule |
|---|---|
| Available surplus | Gross profit minus depreciation and direct taxes |
| Allocable surplus | 60% of the available surplus (67% for certain foreign companies). This is the pool actually paid out as bonus. |
| Minimum bonus | 8.33% of yearly wages, payable even in a loss year (the "entry gift") |
| Maximum bonus | 20% of yearly wages |
| Set-on | Surplus more than the maximum payable is carried forward for up to 4 accounting years |
| Set-off | Surplus less than the minimum payable is made up by drawing on an earlier set-on, again within 4 years |
| Eligibility | Working at least 30 days in the accounting year is the entry ticket |
| Disqualification | Dismissal for fraud, riotous or violent conduct, or theft/sabotage cancels the ticket: no bonus that year, however large the surplus |
Memory hook: "8-60-20, ON saves, OFF spends". Climb in order: 8(.33)% is the floor, 60% is the allocable slice, 20% is the ceiling. Surplus left over? Set-ON saves it for later (up to 4 years). Surplus short? Set-OFF spends the saved balance (same 4-year window). "On" saves up; "off" draws down.
Gratuity: the loyalty reward
The formula
Gratuity = (15 ÷ 26) × last drawn wages × completed years of service.
- 26 = the working days counted in a month.
- So 15/26 approximates "15 days' wages for each year of service".
Eligibility
- 5 years' continuous service is normally the entry gate.
- Exception: where employment ends by death or disablement, or (under the Code on Social Security, 2020) on expiry of fixed-term employment, the 5-year requirement is waived; fixed-term employees are paid pro rata.
Updated: the notes gave death or disablement as the only exceptions to the 5-year rule. The correct position under Section 53(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 is that 5 years' continuous service is also not needed when fixed-term employment expires, and Section 53(2) makes gratuity for fixed-term employees payable pro rata. Source: The Code on Social Security, 2020 (Gazette of India text).
Zoya dies in an accident after 3 years of service. Although she has not completed 5 years, gratuity is payable because her employment ended by death, where the 5-year gate does not apply.
Forfeiture
Gratuity can be forfeited only for:
- damage or loss to the employer's property caused by an act, wilful omission or negligence (forfeited only to the extent of the loss); or
- riotous or violent conduct (wholly or partly); or
- an act involving moral turpitude committed during employment (wholly or partly).
It cannot be forfeited for ordinary misconduct.
Updated: the notes listed only riotous or violent conduct and moral turpitude as grounds for forfeiture. The correct position is that gratuity can also be forfeited, to the extent of the damage or loss caused, where services are terminated for an act, wilful omission or negligence causing damage to or loss of the employer's property (Section 53(6)(a), Code on Social Security, 2020). Source: The Code on Social Security, 2020 (Gazette of India text).
Bakshish Singh v. Darshan Engineering Works, AIR 1994 SC 251: an employee resigned after more than 10 years of continuous service. The employer argued that gratuity was payable only on reaching the age of superannuation. Held: gratuity is earned by continuous service and is not tied to the reason employment ends. Principle: resignation also qualifies.
Memory hook: "15-26-5". Count the formula in one breath: 15 days' wages, out of a 26-day working month, once 5 years are crossed. The 5 disappears only if employment ends in death, disablement or the expiry of fixed-term employment.
Employees' Compensation Act: the injury chain
"Arising out of and in the course of employment"
This is the master phrase; learn it as one unit. Both halves are needed:
- Arising out of = caused by some risk of the job.
- In the course of = happening during working time and at the place of work.
Casual vs. causal connection
The two words are spelt almost alike but mean opposite things.
| Casual connection | Causal connection |
|---|---|
| Mere coincidence; the job added no risk | A real link; the job's risk actually contributed to the injury |
| Does not support a claim | Only this supports a claim |
Exam tip: Casual vs. causal is the exam's favourite trap. Only a causal connection between the job and the injury supports a compensation claim.
Doctrine of notional extension
Employment normally starts and ends at the factory gate. Courts extend it a little in time and space on the direct route to work, but only if the employer controls that route or the route carries a special hazard.
Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. v. Bai Valu Raja: a worker died in an accident on a public ferry while going home. Held: no compensation. The ferry was a public conveyance, not controlled by the employer. Principle: notional extension applies only where the employer controls the route.
Section 51-E, ESI Act (2010 Amendment)
For ESI claims specifically, an accident while commuting counts as an "employment injury" if there is a nexus of time and place with the work. This is a looser, more worker-friendly test than the EC Act's "employer control" test.
Updated: the heading gave the commuting-accident provision as Section 51-C. The correct position is that it is Section 51-E, inserted by the ESI (Amendment) Act, 2010 with effect from 1 June 2010; Section 51-C covers accidents while travelling in the employer's transport. Source: The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESIC, as amended).
Amount of compensation (Section 4, EC Act)
| Result of injury | Compensation |
|---|---|
| Death | 50% of monthly wages × age factor (Schedule IV), plus funeral expenses |
| Permanent total disablement | 60% of monthly wages × age factor |
| Permanent partial disablement | A proportion of the total-disablement amount, based on the percentage loss of earning capacity (Schedule I) |
Leading cases
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak: laid down the classic test for "arising out of employment". Held: there must be a causal connection between the injury and the employment. Principle: this connection can be presumed once the accident happens at the time and place of work.
Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, 2002 SCC (L&S) 97. Held: compensation legislation must be read beneficially, in favour of the injured worker, and not technically.
Memory hook: "50 for the grave, 60 for a life that goes on". Death pays 50% × the age factor. Permanent total disablement pays a little more, 60%, because that worker has to live with the disablement for the rest of their life.
ESI: the safety net
- Coverage: non-seasonal factories and establishments with 10 or more employees (1 or more in a notified hazardous process). Wage ceiling: ₹21,000 per month.
- Contribution (current rates): employer 3.25%, employee 0.75% of wages. "3.25 + 0.75" adds up to a clean number.
- ESI Corporation (Section 3): the body corporate that runs the whole scheme. It collects contributions, pays cash and medical benefits, and runs hospitals and dispensaries out of the ESI Fund (Section 26).
- Employees' Insurance Court (EIC): the special civil court for ESI disputes.
- Disablement disputes: questions of the degree or extent of disablement go first to the Medical Board, and on appeal to the Medical Appeal Tribunal, not straight to the EIC.
Memory hook: "10 → 21 → 3.25 → 0.75". 10 workers bring coverage, wages up to 21,000 stay covered, the employer puts in 3.25%, the employee puts in 0.75%. Each number is smaller than the last, so it can be recited as one falling staircase.
EPF: the retirement trio
- Applicability: establishments with 20 or more employees (Section 1(3)).
- Contribution = 12% + 12%. Both employer and employee pay 12% of (basic wages + DA).
| Contribution | Where it goes |
|---|---|
| Employee's 12% | Wholly to the EPF account |
| Employer's 12% | Splits: 8.33% → Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS); the remaining 3.67% → EPF |
- EDLI Scheme (Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance): a free life-insurance top-up linked to the EPF account, paid to the family if the employee dies while in service.
- Exempted establishments: the government may exempt an employer from the statutory PF scheme if it runs its own private PF that is at least as favourable to employees. The exemption is from the scheme, not from the Act; the other provisions of the EPF Act still apply.
Memory hook: "8 goes old, the rest stays gold". Of the employer's 12%, 8.33 goes old: into the Pension Scheme, for old age. The remaining 3.67 stays gold: plain PF savings in the employee's own account.
CLRA: the backup guarantor
The whole Act in one line: the "big company" (the principal employer) must act as a backup guarantor when the contractor fails the workers.
- Section 20: if the contractor fails to provide the statutory facilities (canteen, restrooms, first aid, drinking water, latrines), the principal employer must provide them and then recover the cost from the contractor.
- Section 21: the principal employer must ensure timely payment of wages. If the contractor defaults, the principal employer must pay the wages himself and may recover them later from the contractor.
- Absorption is not automatic: a government notification under Section 10 prohibiting contract labour in a process does not, by itself, make those contract workers regular employees of the principal employer. Abolition of contract labour and absorption into regular service are two separate legal questions.
Aadil, a contractor, supplies workers to a large company and fails to pay their wages on time. Under Section 21 the company, as principal employer, must pay the wages and can recover the amount from Aadil later.
Memory hook: "20 for shelter, 21 for salary". Section 20 = Shelter-type facilities (canteen, restroom, first aid). Section 21 = Salary. Both start with S, and 20 comes just before 21: shelter before salary.
Factories Act and OSH essentials
- "Young person" (Section 2, Factories Act) = a child (has not completed 15 years) or an adolescent (has completed 15 but not 18). Unlike an adult, both are restricted or prohibited from certain work.
- 1987 Amendment (after the Bhopal Gas Leak): added special restrictions on industrialists starting any factory involving a hazardous process, with stricter siting, disclosure and worker safety committee requirements. Once a process is officially listed as hazardous, the ordinary fitness-certificate and working-hours rules are not enough.
- OSH Code, 2020: later brings factory safety, contract labour and inter-State migrant worker provisions under one umbrella Code (13 constituent Acts; see "Labour Codes: the numbers" below).
Memory hook: "Child stops at 15, adult starts at 18; in between, you're a young person." The whole "young person" definition is the gap between these two ages.
MGNREGA in one line
MGNREGA guarantees rural work itself: an income floor and social-security-like protection through guaranteed employment. Every other Act in this course only regulates jobs that already exist.
Case laws: one image per case
| Case | Visual hook |
|---|---|
| Bijoy Cotton Mills | A mill owner cries "unfair restriction" over minimum wage; the court says no, it is reasonable |
| Chandra Bhavan Boarding | A lodge owner: paying a fair wage is not confiscation, it is the price of labour |
| Saurashtra Salt | A ferry accident: the worker was outside the employer's area, so no compensation |
| Mackinnon Mackenzie | The classic test: causal connection can be presumed from the time and place of the accident |
| Roshan Deen | Compensation law read beneficially, for the worker, not technically |
| Bakshish Singh | Resigned, not retired: gratuity is earned by service, not by how it ends |
| Francis De Costa | Injured on the road to work: a commuting injury is not an employment injury |
| PUDR (Asiad) | Stadium labourers paid below the minimum wage, which counts as forced labour |
| Bandhua Mukti Morcha | Bonded (bandhua) labourers in quarries: rescue and rehabilitate |
| MCD (Muster Roll) | Daily-wage women get maternity benefit too |
| Randhir Singh | A Delhi Police driver paid less than other drivers: equal pay |
| Jagjit Singh | Temporary staff, same work, same pay |
| Nergesh Meerza | Air hostess dismissed for pregnancy: the rule was struck down |
| Dimakuchi | Tea estate: who counts as a "workman" and what is an "industrial dispute" |
| Bangalore Water Supply | Water board counts as an "industry" (wide test) |
| D.K. Yadav | Dismissed without a hearing: violates natural justice |
| Olga Tellis | Pavement dwellers: livelihood is part of life |
| CERC | Asbestos workers: right to health |
Cases not covered in the topic notes above
Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1: the employee was injured on the road while on the way to work. Held: an injury while commuting is not an employment injury. For ESI claims, this position was reversed by Section 51-E of the ESI Act, inserted with effect from 1 June 2010.
Updated: the case was stated as current law that a commuting injury is not an employment injury. The correct position for ESI is that Section 51-E deems an accident while commuting between residence and workplace to arise out of and in the course of employment where a nexus of circumstances, time and place with the employment is established. Source: The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESIC, as amended).
PUDR (Asiad workers' case): labourers building the Asiad stadium were paid below the minimum wage. Held: paying less than the minimum wage amounts to forced labour (Article 23).
Bandhua Mukti Morcha: bonded (bandhua) labourers working in quarries. Held: they must be rescued and rehabilitated. Principle: bonded labour is forced labour under Article 23.
MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll): women engaged on daily wages (muster roll) by the municipal corporation claimed maternity benefit. Held: daily-wage women workers are also entitled to maternity benefit. Theme: Article 15, Article 42.
Randhir Singh: a driver in the Delhi Police was paid less than other drivers doing the same work. Held: equal pay for equal work. Theme: Article 14, Article 39(d).
Jagjit Singh: temporary staff doing the same work as regular staff. Held: same work, same pay. Theme: Article 14, Article 39(d).
Nergesh Meerza: an air hostess was dismissed on account of pregnancy. Held: the rule was struck down. Theme: dignity at work (Articles 14 and 21).
Dimakuchi Tea Estate: arose on a tea estate. Principle: explains who counts as a "workman" and what is an "industrial dispute".
Bangalore Water Supply: whether a water supply board is an "industry". Held: yes. Principle: the wide test of "industry".
D.K. Yadav: a worker was dismissed without being given a hearing. Held: dismissal without a hearing violates natural justice. Theme: Articles 14 and 21.
Olga Tellis: concerned pavement dwellers. Held: the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
CERC v. Union of India: concerned workers in the asbestos industry. Held: workers have a right to health under Article 21.
File each case under its theme chain
Do not learn the cases as one flat list. File each case under the theme chain it belongs to, so that it comes back attached to an Article, a DPSP and a Code.
| Theme | Cases |
|---|---|
| Wages (Art. 14 / 19(1)(g)) | Bijoy Cotton Mills, Chandra Bhavan, Randhir Singh, Jagjit Singh |
| Injury (EC Act / ESI) | Saurashtra Salt, Mackinnon Mackenzie, Roshan Deen, Francis De Costa |
| Dignity / Art. 21 | Nergesh Meerza, D.K. Yadav, Olga Tellis, CERC |
| "Is it an industry / workman?" (IR) | Dimakuchi, Bangalore Water Supply |
| Forced labour (Art. 23) | PUDR (Asiad), Bandhua Mukti Morcha |
| Gratuity / Maternity | Bakshish Singh, MCD (Muster Roll) |
Labour Codes: the numbers
4 Codes replace 29 Acts. Number of Acts merged into each Code: "4-3-13-9".
| Code | Acts merged | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Code on Wages | 4 | 2019 |
| Industrial Relations Code | 3 | 2020 |
| OSH Code | 13 ("unlucky 13", which is why safety is needed) | 2020 |
| Code on Social Security | 9 | 2020 |
| Total | 4 + 3 + 13 + 9 = 29 |
- Years: the Code on Wages is the odd one out (2019); the other three are of 2020.
- In force: 21 November 2025. Hook: "21 for 21st-century labour law".
Memory hook: The whole topic in one sentence: "4-3-13-9, all born in 2020 except Wages (2019), all alive from 21/11/25."
Code on Social Security chapters: "PEG-MEBU"
Chapters III to IX, in order:
| Chapter | Letter | Topic | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| III | P | Provident Fund | |
| IV | E | ESI | |
| V | G | Gratuity | ss. 53–58 (the "5" in 53 = 5 years' service) |
| VI | M | Maternity | ss. 59–72 |
| VII | E | Employee's Compensation | ss. 73–99 (the longest chapter, because injuries are many) |
| VIII | B | Building and Other Construction Workers (BOCW) cess | |
| IX | U | Unorganised, gig and platform workers | ss. 109–114 |
Section 164 = repeal in the CoSS; in the OSH Code it is Section 143. The numbers differ, so learn them separately.
Updated: the notes said Section 143 is the repeal section in both the CoSS and the OSH Code. The correct position is that repeal and savings in the Code on Social Security, 2020 is Section 164; Section 143 of that Code is the power to exempt establishments. Source: The Code on Social Security, 2020 (Gazette of India text).
Maternity benefit: a number story
The story: "A mother gets 26 weeks for her first 2 babies, 12 for the third. She can take 8 weeks before birth. If she adopts a baby under 3 months, she gets 12. If the office has 50 people, it needs a crèche."
| Number | Rule |
|---|---|
| 26 weeks | Maternity leave for the first 2 children |
| 12 weeks | Maternity leave for the third child |
| 8 weeks | Maximum leave that can be taken before birth |
| 12 weeks | Adoption of a baby below 3 months of age |
| 50 employees | Establishment must have a crèche |
Smaller benefits around the core numbers
- Medical bonus: payable where free pre-natal and post-natal care is not provided.
- 6 weeks' paid leave after a miscarriage.
- 2 weeks' leave after a tubectomy.
- Nursing breaks until the child turns 15 months.
- No dismissal during maternity leave.
Memory hook: Chant 26-2-12-8-3-12-50 a few times and the whole maternity scheme sticks.
Government schemes: decode the names
The name of each scheme tells you what it does.
| Scheme | Clue in the name | What it provides |
|---|---|---|
| PMJJBY | Jeevan | Life insurance |
| PMSBY | Suraksha | Accident insurance |
| PM-SYM | Shram Yogi | Workers' pension |
| PM-LVM | Laghu Vyapari | Small traders' pension |
| Ayushman | Health | |
| e-Shram | Database and card for unorganised workers | |
| NCS | Job matching |
Exam keywords: four boxes of doctrines
Box 1: Worker-friendly doctrines
| Doctrine | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Beneficial construction | Welfare legislation is read liberally, in favour of the worker, not technically against them. |
| Notional extension | Employment is treated as extending a little beyond the factory gate in time and space, where the employer controls the route or a special hazard exists. |
| Added peril | The employer is not liable where the worker takes on an extra risk beyond what the job actually required. |
Memory hook: "B-A-N". Beneficial construction, Added peril, Notional extension. Added peril is the odd one out: the one exception in this box that cuts against the worker.
Box 2: Constitutional doctrines
| Doctrine | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Harmonious construction | Read two conflicting provisions together so that both survive, instead of striking one down. |
| Pith and substance | Look at a law's true nature or core subject to decide which legislative List it falls under. |
| Repugnancy | A State law is void only to the extent that it conflicts with a Union law on a Concurrent List subject (Article 254). |
| Ultra vires | "Beyond powers": a law or act that exceeds what the Constitution or the parent statute authorises. |
Memory hook: Use them in this order. First find the law's true pith. Then try to read it in harmony with the other law. If they still clash, ask whether it is repugnant (Article 254: void only to that extent). If it was never validly made at all, it is ultra vires from the start.
Box 3: Precedent doctrines
| Doctrine | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Ratio decidendi | The binding legal reasoning of a judgment. |
| Obiter dicta | Remarks made "along the way"; persuasive but not binding. |
| Stare decisis | "Stand by things decided": courts follow their own earlier rulings. |
Memory hook: "Ratio binds, Obiter guides, Stare repeats." Three verbs for three doctrines, in one sentence.
Box 4: Rules of interpretation
| Rule | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Golden rule | Take the plain, literal meaning unless it produces an absurd result; in that case, modify it just enough to avoid the absurdity. |
| Mischief rule | Ask what "mischief" (problem) the statute was passed to cure, and interpret it so as to suppress that mischief. |
| Ejusdem generis | General words that follow a list of specific words are limited to things of the same kind as that list. |
Memory hook: "Letter, Purpose, Pattern". Golden rule = the letter of the law (bent only to avoid absurdity). Mischief rule = the purpose behind it. Ejusdem generis = the pattern of a list (a general word takes on the character of its specific neighbours).
Revision method
- Blurt: close the notes, write down everything remembered on a blank page, then check what was missed. Do this once for each section.
- Space it: revise on day 1, day 3, day 7 and day 14. Each round takes only a few minutes.
- Teach it: explain one theme chain aloud as if it were a 60-second reel. Being able to say it simply shows it has been understood.
- Draw it: make a one-page mind map with Article 21 at the centre and branches to the cases and Codes. Then make a second map with the injury, wages, bonus and gratuity Acts at the centre, since that half of the syllabus is not reached by the first map.
