Rules (For Questions 1 to 5)

A. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association.

B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate.

C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realize the objectives of forming the association.

D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons.

E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind any person.

Facts
Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monirul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Singh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals.

Decide which of the following propositions can be most reasonably inferred through the application of the stated legal rules to the facts of this case:

• The employment contract offered to Monirul Alam to join GMS is legal as it does not restrict his freedom not to join any association.

• The condition requiring Monirul Alam to join GMS cannot bind him as it impinges on his freedom not to join any association.

• Syed Monirul Alam cannot claim a fundamental right to freedom of association against Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals and therefore, the contract would bind him even though his freedom of association is restricted.

• The employment contract infringes Syed Monirul Alam’s freedom to decide with whom to associate and therefore is legally not enforceable.

If Parliament enacts a law which requires every employee to join the largest trade union in their workplace mandating Syed Monirul Alam to join GMS, then:

• Such a law would merely govern private action to which fundamental rights do not apply.

• Such a law would not curtail any individual’s right to freedom of association.

• Neither the employment contract, nor the law of the parliament would be enforceable as they would curtail the freedom of association.

• The law of parliament would violate an individual’s freedom not to join any association and therefore be unconstitutional.

If Parliament enacts is law that requires a trade union to open its membership to all the employees, then

• Such a law would not infringe any fundamental right to freedom of association.

• The law of the parliament would curtail an individual’s right not to join any association.

• Such a law would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.

• Such a law would render the employment contract offered by Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals to Syed Monirul Alam unenforceable.

If Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals enter into an agreement with GMS wherein the former agrees to hire only the existing members of GMS as employees, then:

• The agreement would be illegal as it would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.

• Such an agreement would infringe the union’s right to decide with whom to associate and therefore is legally not enforceable.

• The agreement would not be enforceable as it would infringe upon the employer’s right not to join an association.

• The constitutionality of this agreement cannot be contested on grounds of contravention of fundamental rights as such rights are not applicable to private persons.

If Parliament enacts a legislation prohibiting strikes by trade unions of employees engaged in pharmaceutical industry, then:

• The legislation would not violate the right to freedom of association.

• The legislation would curtail the right of trade unions to strike, and therefore violate freedom of association.

• Since strike is only one of the objectives with which a trade union is formed, right to strike is not protected by the right to freedom of association.

• None of the above