AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 249 - 249 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 249

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

Legal Principle: Intimidation involves a threat to do something unlawful or ‘illegitimate’ ; it must be intended to coerce the claimant to take or not take certain action.

Facts: Hari, a skilled draughtsman and employee of the Overseas Airways Corporation (OAC) , resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen (AESD) , a registered trade union. It was agreed between OAC and AESD (among others) that no strike or lockout should take place and disputes should be handled by arbitration. He resigned from his union, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draftsman (AESD) , after a disagreement. The Corporation and AESD had a contract that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so AESD threatened a strike unless Hari resigned also from his job or was fired. Corporation suspended Hari and, after some months, dismissed him with one week՚s salary in lieu of notice. Hari brought an action for damages alleging that he was the victim of a tortious intimidation. Decide.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

Hari cannot claim damages as he was paid one week՚s salary in lieu of notice.

b.

There was a contract between Union and Corporation that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so the Union is not liable.

c.

The union was guilty of the tort of intimidation. It was unlawful intimidation to use a threat to break their contracts with their employer as a weapon to make him do something which he was legally entitled to do but which they knew would cause loss to Hari.

d.

The Union was not guilty of intimidation as no unlawful means were used to induce Corporation to terminate his contract of service.

Developed by: