Skip to content

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · International Labour Organization

Nirmal Steels' counsel notes that India ratified an ILO Convention but existing Indian law falls short of it. The worker union claims the Convention can be directly enforced against the company in a High Court. Which is the best view under the Indian constitutional scheme?

Ratified ILO Conventions are not directly enforceable against a private employer in India without implementing legislation, because India follows a dualist approach and Parliament must legislate under its treaty-implementing power. Courts may nonetheless use the Convention as an interpretive aid where it is consistent with domestic law.

  1. ADirectly enforceable, because treaties automatically override statutes
  2. BNever relevant to Indian courts under any circumstances
  3. CNot directly enforceable as law without Parliament legislating, though courts may use it to interpret domestic law where consistentCorrect
  4. DEnforceable only through the ILO's own court against the company

Explanation

Under Article 253 Parliament has power to legislate to implement international agreements, and India follows a dualist approach, so a ratified Convention needs domestic legislation to be enforceable. Courts may still refer to it as an interpretive aid where domestic law is silent or ambiguous. Option A states a monist position that India does not follow.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on International Labour Organization shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise International Labour OrganizationFree diagnostic mock

More International Labour Organization questions