The Trade Disputes Act of 1929 provided for

States the government passed the Trade Disputes Act (1929) as a legislative restriction in response to militant trade-union activity, implying a repressive intent toward unions rather than empowerment.

A student could infer that a law enacted to curb union power is unlikely to contain explicit provisions promoting worker participation in management and should check the Act's text or contemporary commentary for any management-participation clauses.

Describes the Trade Disputes Act (called here 1928) as 'draconian' and designed to curtail civil liberties and suppress trade union activities, again suggesting the Act limited workers' collective power.

Use this characterization to look for specific prohibitions or limitations in the Act (e.g., restriction of strikes or union rights) that would be incompatible with formal worker-management participation mechanisms.

Explains trade unions' role as labour pressure groups and their political affiliations, indicating that worker representation typically operates via unions rather than statutory seats on management boards.

A student could compare whether the period's legislation favored suppression of unions (per [3],[6]) rather than creating alternate, statutory worker-representation channels in management.

Describes later labour law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) imposing government control over layoffs/retrenchments, showing a pattern where labour regulation took the form of state control rather than formal worker participation in management.

Extend this pattern by checking whether earlier 1929 legislation also followed a pattern of state/owner control instead of instituting worker-management participation rights.

Notes an 'anti-labour shift' in politics that produced legislation (Bombay Traders Disputes Act 1938) unsympathetic to workers, supporting the broader context that interwar legislation tended to restrict rather than empower labour in management.

Use the political trend to hypothesize that the 1929 Act likely did not create pro-participation provisions and then verify by consulting the Act's text or historical legislative debates.

Describes specific provisions of the TDA (1929): mandatory Courts of Inquiry/Consultation Boards, bans on strikes in public utilities without one month's notice, and prohibition of coercive/political/sympathetic strikes.

A student could compare these restrictions on strike action with common definitions of 'arbitrary management power' to judge whether the Act shifted dispute-resolution authority away from workers toward formal authorities/management.

Characterises the Trade Disputes Act (given as 1928 here) as 'draconian' and says it armed the government to curtail civil liberties and suppress trade-union activities.

One could use this characterization plus knowledge of British colonial priorities to infer the Act’s political intent and then check whether provisions gave employers or administration discretionary powers to break strikes.

Shows a later pattern in Indian labour law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) where legal rules restrict employer/worker actions (e.g., requiring government permission for retrenchment), indicating a legislative approach that regulated dispute outcomes via authorities.

A student could treat this as a broader legal pattern of state-mediated industrial relations and investigate whether the 1929 Act similarly shifted dispute-control to formal/legal mechanisms rather than leaving it to unions.

Says the British Government 'brought two draconian Acts - the Trade Disputes Act, 1928 and the Public Safety Bill, 1928' that 'armed the government with powers to curtail civil liberties ... and suppress the trade union activities' — indicating the Act focused on executive/police powers against unions.

A student could use this pattern (legislation granting executive suppression powers) plus knowledge of colonial administrative practice to test whether the Act centralized remedies in government organs rather than enabling foreign/British-court intervention.

Notes the government 'resorted to legislative restrictions' and 'passed ... the Trade Disputes Act (TDA), 1929', suggesting the Act was a domestic legislative measure intended to limit union activity rather than to create new external judicial review channels.

Combine this with the basic fact that Acts usually specify remedies and forum; a student could check the TDA text or colonial practice to see if it redirected dispute resolution away from courts or left it intact.

Mentions the Trade Disputes Bill was introduced in the Assembly and was characterized as 'an anti-labour legislation', implying its purpose was restrictive of labour rights rather than to expand courtroom access, especially by British courts.

Using the rule that 'anti-labour' laws often curtail judicial remedies for unions, a student could examine whether the Bill/Act removed or limited judicial intervention (domestic or imperial).

States that an Act 'empowers trade unions to strike and represent their members in labour courts in disputes with the employers', offering an example of how labour law can interact with courts (labour courts) rather than imperial/British courts.

A student could contrast this pattern (domestic labour courts handling disputes) with the question of British-court intervention to infer whether colonial practice favored local labour tribunals over direct British judicial intervention.