Labour Law MCQs for Judiciary, Page 2

Correct answer: B. Two years from the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, from the date of death, subject to the Commissioner's discretion to entertain a claim even after the expiry of this period if satisfied that the failure to make the claim within the prescribed period was due to sufficient cause

Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 prescribes a limitation period of two years from the occurrence of the accident (or from the date of death, in cases of death) for preferring a claim for compensation before the Commissioner, subject to the requirement of proper notice having been given. Importantly, the section vests the Commissioner with discretion to entertain a claim even after the expiry of this two-year period where satisfied that the delay was due to sufficient cause, reflecting the protective and beneficial character of the legislation, which seeks to avoid the harsh result of a genuinely deserving claimant being denied compensation purely due to a procedural delay that may have arisen from legitimate and explicable circumstances rather than any lack of merit in the underlying claim.

Source note: Section 10, Employees Compensation Act 1923

Correct answer: B. The workman is entitled to notice and compensation as if he had been retrenched under Section 25F, subject to the proviso that where the closure is due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the employer's control, the compensation payable to the workman may be limited to a maximum specified amount (notwithstanding the general formula under Section 25F), reflecting a degree of relief for employers whose closure was genuinely forced by circumstances outside their control, such as situations involving natural calamity or similar unavoidable causes

Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 extends the principle of retrenchment compensation to situations involving closure of an undertaking, generally entitling a workman with one year or more of continuous service to notice and compensation calculated in the same manner as under Section 25F (retrenchment compensation). However, the section includes an important proviso applicable specifically to closure: where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation payable to the workman may be limited to a specified maximum amount, providing a degree of relief for employers facing closure due to genuinely unavoidable causes (as opposed to closure resulting from ordinary business decisions), reflecting the legislature's attempt to balance worker protection with recognition of circumstances genuinely beyond an employer's control.

Source note: Section 25FFF, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. Serve a notice on every workman to be retrenched in the prescribed manner, and apply for prior permission of the appropriate government or specified authority, stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment, with retrenchment effected without obtaining the requisite permission being deemed illegal, while permission may be granted or refused having regard to factors including the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated, interests of workmen, and various other relevant factors specified under the section

Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 establishes the more stringent retrenchment regime applicable to larger establishments covered by Chapter VB, requiring the employer to both serve notice on the workman to be retrenched and obtain prior permission from the appropriate government or specified authority before effecting retrenchment, stating the reasons for the intended retrenchment. The government's decision on whether to grant permission takes into account factors including the genuineness and adequacy of the stated reasons, the interests of the workmen, and other relevant factors specified under the section, and retrenchment effected without the requisite permission is deemed illegal, paralleling the more rigorous permission-based approach (as opposed to the notice-and-compensation approach under Section 25F applicable to other establishments) that characterises the Chapter VB framework for larger establishments.

Source note: Section 25N, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to a specified amount, or with both, reflecting the Act's recognition that participation in an illegal strike, while a serious matter warranting a penal consequence, is treated as a relatively minor offence compared to many other categories of criminal conduct, given the underlying context of a labour dispute rather than ordinary criminality

Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prescribes a relatively modest penal consequence for workmen who commence, continue, or further an illegal strike: imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or fine, or both. This relatively limited penalty (compared to penalties for many other categories of offences) reflects the Act's underlying recognition that strikes, even when found to be procedurally illegal under the Act's specific requirements (such as the notice provisions of Section 22), typically arise within the context of a genuine labour dispute rather than constituting ordinary criminal conduct, and the legislature accordingly calibrated the penal consequence to reflect this distinctive context, while still maintaining some deterrent effect against non-compliance with the Act's procedural strike regulations.

Source note: Section 26, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. Any illegal strike or lockout, prohibiting financial assistance from being knowingly provided in direct furtherance or support of a strike or lockout that is illegal under the provisions of the Act, thereby seeking to deter not only direct participants in an illegal strike or lockout but also third parties who might otherwise provide financial backing to sustain such illegal industrial action

Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 extends the Act's regulatory reach beyond direct participants in an illegal strike or lockout to also prohibit knowing financial support for such illegal industrial action. By prohibiting any person from knowingly expending or applying money in direct furtherance or support of an illegal strike or lockout, the provision seeks to deter not only the workmen or employers directly engaged in the illegal action but also third parties (such as other organisations or individuals) who might otherwise provide financial backing enabling the illegal strike or lockout to be sustained over a longer period, reinforcing the broader statutory objective of discouraging non-compliance with the Act's procedural requirements governing strikes and lockouts.

Source note: Section 25, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. The Code provides time limits depending on the wage period (daily, weekly, fortnightly, or monthly) adopted by the establishment, generally requiring payment before the expiry of a prescribed number of days after the end of the relevant wage period, broadly continuing the protective timely-payment principle established under the erstwhile Payment of Wages Act, 1936, while consolidating it within the unified wage code framework

The Code on Wages, 2019 retains and consolidates the fundamental protective principle of timely wage payment that was previously addressed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, providing time limits for wage payment depending on the wage period (which may be fixed as daily, weekly, fortnightly, or monthly) adopted by a particular establishment, generally requiring payment within a prescribed number of days after the conclusion of the relevant wage period. This continuity in the underlying protective principle, even as the provision has been relocated and consolidated within the unified Code framework, reflects the broader codification exercise's general approach of structurally reorganising and consolidating previously separate labour statutes while substantively preserving their core protective principles for workers.

Source note: Code on Wages 2019 - Time Period for Wage Payment

Correct answer: B. In the absence of a uniform central statutory recognition mechanism, the determination of which union (or unions) would engage in collective bargaining with a given employer was addressed through a patchwork of voluntary recognition practices, certain state-specific recognition legislation in some jurisdictions, the non-binding Code of Discipline evolved through tripartite consultation, and case law (such as Food Corporation of India Staff Union v.)

The practical consequence of the historical absence of a uniform central statutory recognition mechanism for collective bargaining was considerable variability and uncertainty in how trade union recognition was addressed across India prior to the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. In the absence of binding central legislation, recognition was addressed through a patchwork of voluntary recognition arrangements negotiated directly between employers and unions, certain state-specific recognition statutes that existed in some jurisdictions (filling the gap left by central legislation within their territorial scope), the non-binding Code of Discipline (evolved through tripartite consultation among government, employer, and worker representatives as a voluntary framework), and clarifying case law such as Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India, which confirmed that the Trade Unions Act, 1926 itself created no enforceable obligation on employers to recognise any particular registered union, leaving recognition largely to non-statutory or fragmented state-level mechanisms until the 2020 Code introduced a uniform central framework.

Source note: Pre-2020 Trade Union Recognition Gap; Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India AIR 1995 SC 1344

Correct answer: A. Treated as void or voidable merely on the ground that it is in restraint of trade, addressing the potential common law difficulty that an agreement among workmen to act collectively in matters of wages, conditions, or trade-related restraint might otherwise be vulnerable to challenge on traditional contract law grounds prohibiting agreements in restraint of trade

Section 16 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides important protection by clarifying that an agreement between members of a registered trade union shall not be treated as void or voidable merely because it is in restraint of trade, addressing a potential common law vulnerability under traditional contract law principles, which generally treat agreements in restraint of trade with suspicion and may render them void or unenforceable absent specific justification. By immunising trade union agreements among members from this general common law principle (specifically in relation to the trade union's lawful objects), Section 16 ensures that collective arrangements regarding matters such as wages, working conditions, and coordinated trade union action are not rendered legally vulnerable purely on the basis of this traditional contract law doctrine, reinforcing the broader legislative framework supporting legitimate trade union activity.

Source note: Section 16, Trade Unions Act 1926

Correct answer: B. Where the workman, instead of being laid off, is offered alternative employment in the same establishment which does not call for any special skill or previous experience and can be done by him, provided that the alternative employment would not involve any unreasonable change in conditions of service, and the workman refuses to accept such offered employment; or where the workman does not present himself at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours at least once a day during the period of lay-off; or where the lay-off is due to a strike or slowing down of production by workmen in another part of the establishment

The proviso to Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 establishes specific disqualifying circumstances under which lay-off compensation is not payable, despite the general entitlement for workmen with one year or more of continuous service. These include: refusal of suitable alternative employment offered by the employer within the same establishment, not requiring special skill or experience, and not involving unreasonable changes in service conditions; failure to present oneself for work during the lay-off period at the appointed time at least once daily; and lay-off resulting from a strike or deliberate slowing down of production by workmen in another part of the establishment. These disqualifications reflect a policy balance, ensuring that lay-off compensation, while protective of genuinely affected workmen, is not payable in circumstances suggesting the workman's own conduct contributed to or is inconsistent with continued entitlement.

Source note: Proviso to Section 25C, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join, or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to discharge or dismiss workmen by way of victimisation for their genuine trade union activities; or to discharge or discharge with notice any workman in pursuance of a recommendation made by an officer of the establishment with a view to victimise such workman for legitimate trade union activities

The Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enumerates specific categories of unfair labour practices on the part of employers, including: interfering with, restraining, or coercing workmen in exercising their right to organise or join trade unions or engage in concerted activities for collective bargaining; discharging or dismissing workmen by way of victimisation for genuine trade union activities; and discharging workmen pursuant to a recommendation aimed at victimising them for legitimate trade union activities, among various other specified categories addressing employer conduct that undermines workers' freedom of association and protection against retaliatory action connected to legitimate trade union activity, complementing the broader protective scheme of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Industrial Disputes Act framework as a whole.

Source note: Fifth Schedule, Sections 25T-25U, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. To advise or actively support, or instigate any strike deemed to be illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act; to coerce workmen in the exercise of their right to self-organisation or to join a union of their own choice; or to indulge in coercive activities against certification of a bargaining representative, among other specified practices

The Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 identifies specific categories of unfair labour practices applicable to workmen and trade unions as well, reflecting the balanced statutory recognition that both sides of the employment relationship can potentially engage in conduct undermining fair and orderly industrial relations. Examples include advising, actively supporting, or instigating a strike that is illegal under the Act; coercing workmen in their exercise of the right to self-organisation or to choose their own union freely (including coercion exercised by a rival union or its members against fellow workmen); and engaging in coercive activities directed against the proper certification process for determining a bargaining representative, among various other specified categories, ensuring the unfair labour practice framework addresses problematic conduct from multiple directions rather than being one-sidedly focused only on employer misconduct.

Source note: Fifth Schedule, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. A Grievance Redressal Committee, comprising equal numbers of members representing the employer and the workmen, intended to provide an internal, expeditious, and accessible mechanism for resolving individual disputes connected with a workman's employment, prior to (or potentially in lieu of) resort to the more formal external dispute resolution machinery under the Act

Section 9C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates the establishment of a Grievance Redressal Committee in every industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen, comprising equal numbers of members representing the employer and the workmen, providing an internal, relatively informal, and accessible mechanism intended to facilitate the expeditious resolution of individual grievances connected with a workman's employment before resort is made to the more formal and time-consuming external dispute resolution machinery (such as conciliation and adjudication before Labour Courts or Tribunals) provided elsewhere under the Act, reflecting a broader policy objective of encouraging resolution of individual workplace disputes at the earliest and most accessible stage possible.

Source note: Section 9C, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. Make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner to the relevant authority before which the main proceeding is pending, and on receipt of such complaint, that authority shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, applying the same provisions as would apply if the dispute had been referred for adjudication, providing an efficient mechanism for addressing the contravention within the existing proceedings rather than requiring an entirely fresh and separate dispute reference

Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a specific and efficient remedial mechanism for addressing an employer's contravention of the protective restrictions under Section 33. Rather than requiring the affected workman to initiate an entirely separate and fresh dispute reference, Section 33A allows the workman to make a written complaint, in the prescribed manner, to the very authority before which the main proceeding (in connection with which the contravention occurred) is already pending. That authority is then empowered to adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were itself a dispute referred to or pending before it, applying the relevant provisions of the Act, providing a streamlined and efficient procedural mechanism for promptly addressing Section 33 violations within the context of the existing related proceedings.

Source note: Section 33A, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 introduces a statutory, legally defined process for determining which trade union (or combination of unions through a negotiating council) is entitled to engage in collective bargaining with the employer on behalf of the workforce, replacing the previous reliance on voluntary recognition, fragmented state-specific legislation, and the non-binding Code of Discipline, thereby providing greater legal certainty and a uniform central framework for what union recognition disputes had previously lacked

The most significant practical change introduced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 in this area is the establishment of a statutory, legally defined process for determining trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes, an area that had previously lacked a uniform central legislative framework and had instead been addressed through a patchwork of voluntary recognition practices, scattered state-specific legislation, and the non-binding Code of Discipline. By providing clear statutory criteria for recognition (whether through a sole negotiating union where only one union exists, a union meeting a prescribed support threshold where multiple unions exist, or a proportionally representative negotiating council where no single union meets the threshold), the Code introduces a degree of legal certainty and uniformity to collective bargaining recognition that had been notably absent under the previous central legislative framework.

Source note: Comparison of Pre-2020 Framework and Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Negotiating Union Mechanism

Correct answer: B. Industrial adjudication, while drawing upon many procedural elements familiar from ordinary civil litigation, has historically been understood to serve a broader function extending beyond merely determining strict legal rights based on existing contractual or statutory entitlements; industrial tribunals have, in many contexts, been understood to possess a degree of latitude to fashion outcomes having regard to considerations of social justice, fairness, and the broader objectives of industrial peace and harmony, rather than being confined purely to a strict legalistic determination of pre-existing rights as a civil court applying ordinary contract or property law principles might be

Indian labour law jurisprudence has long recognised a significant conceptual distinction between industrial adjudication and ordinary civil adjudication. While industrial tribunals draw upon many procedural elements familiar from civil litigation (such as the recording of evidence and application of natural justice principles), industrial adjudication has historically been understood, in various contexts, to serve a function extending beyond a purely strict legalistic determination of pre-existing contractual or statutory rights, with industrial tribunals possessing some degree of latitude to fashion outcomes informed by considerations of social justice, fairness between the parties, and the broader objective of promoting industrial peace and harmony, reflecting an understanding that labour disputes often raise considerations beyond what a court applying strict private law principles (such as ordinary contract law) would typically address, though the precise scope and limits of this broader adjudicatory function have themselves been the subject of considerable judicial discussion and evolution over time.

Source note: Distinction between Industrial Adjudication and Civil Adjudication in Indian Labour Law Jurisprudence

Correct answer: B. Not a worker, and the provisions of any labour law, including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall not apply to or in relation to an apprentice or his employment, with apprenticeship being governed instead by the specific provisions of the Apprentices Act and the contract of apprenticeship rather than the general body of labour protective legislation applicable to ordinary employees

Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 specifically clarifies that an apprentice is not a 'worker', and the provisions of various labour enactments, including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Factories Act, 1948 (subject to certain specified exceptions relating to health, safety, and welfare provisions that may still apply), do not apply to or in relation to an apprentice or his employment, distinguishing the apprenticeship training relationship from an ordinary employer-employee relationship governed by the general body of protective labour legislation. This distinct legal status reflects the apprenticeship's specific training-oriented purpose, governed by its own dedicated statutory framework under the Apprentices Act and the specific contract of apprenticeship, rather than the general labour law framework applicable to ordinary workers.

Source note: Section 18, Apprentices Act 1961

Correct answer: B. The definition generally includes basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance, while specifically excluding components such as statutory bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act provisions of the Code, value of house accommodation and certain other amenities, employer's contribution to pension or provident fund, conveyance allowance, house rent allowance, overtime allowance, and certain other specified categories, subject to a statutory cap (generally fifty percent) on the total amount of such excluded allowances relative to total remuneration, beyond which any excess is deemed to form part of wages

The Code on Wages, 2019 introduces a standardised and unified definition of 'wages' applicable consistently across the consolidated wage provisions, generally including basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance as core components, while specifically excluding various categories such as statutory bonus, value of house accommodation and certain amenities, employer's pension or provident fund contributions, conveyance allowance, house rent allowance, and overtime allowance, among certain other specified exclusions. Importantly, the Code introduces a statutory cap, generally set at fifty percent, on the proportion of total remuneration that can be constituted by such excluded allowances; where the excluded components exceed this threshold, the excess amount is deemed to form part of wages for relevant statutory purposes, addressing a long-standing practice of structuring compensation with a disproportionately low basic pay component (thereby minimising statutory liabilities tied to wages) by introducing this counterbalancing deeming provision.

Source note: Code on Wages 2019 - Definition of Wages

Correct answer: B. Every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in the undertaking immediately before the transfer is entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with Section 25F, as if he had been retrenched, unless the transfer satisfies specified conditions (including that the service of the workman is not interrupted by the transfer, the terms and conditions of service applicable after the transfer are not less favourable, and the new employer is legally liable to pay compensation on the basis that the workman's service has been continuous and not interrupted), in which case retrenchment compensation under Section 25F is not payable since the transfer is treated as preserving continuity of employment rather than terminating it

Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 addresses the important question of workmen's entitlements upon transfer of ownership or management of an undertaking. The general rule entitles a workman with one year or more of continuous service to notice and compensation as if retrenched, treating the transfer as effectively terminating the previous employment relationship. However, the section carves out an important exception preserving continuity of employment (and thus not triggering this compensation obligation) where specified conditions are satisfied, namely uninterrupted service, no less favourable terms and conditions after transfer, and the new employer's legal liability to treat service as continuous, reflecting a policy preference for preserving employment continuity through genuine business transfers wherever workmen's substantive interests are adequately protected by the new employer, rather than mandating retrenchment-style compensation in every transfer scenario regardless of the actual impact on the workman's employment.

Source note: Section 25FF, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Correct answer: B. Courts examine whether the alleged custom or usage is ancient (or at least sufficiently long-established), certain and definite in its terms, uniformly and consistently observed without significant variation or interruption, and reasonable, applying an analytical framework broadly analogous to that used in evaluating customs as a source of law more generally in Indian jurisprudence, while also considering the specific industrial relations context and the distinction between a genuinely binding customary practice and a merely occasional or discretionary employer gesture

Indian labour jurisprudence addressing claims of customary payments in estate-based industries such as tea plantations applies an analytical framework broadly analogous to that used more generally in evaluating the legal status of customs, examining factors including whether the alleged practice is sufficiently long-established and consistently observed, certain and definite in its specific terms (such as the rate or amount of payment), and reasonable, while also carefully considering the specific industrial relations context to distinguish a genuinely binding, settled customary practice from what may be merely an occasional, voluntary, or discretionary gesture by the employer that has not crystallised into an enforceable implied term of employment, reflecting the broader jurisprudential principle that customary entitlements require clear and consistent evidentiary support before being judicially recognised as legally binding.

Source note: Industrial Custom and Customary Bonus Jurisprudence in Estate-Based Industries

Correct answer: B. The Code generally retains the substantive framework established under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017), including provisions addressing the duration of maternity benefit (distinguishing between women with fewer than two and two or more surviving children), extension of benefit to commissioning and adopting mothers, the creche facility requirement, and protection against discharge or dismissal connected to maternity-related absence, while restructuring these provisions within the broader consolidated social security framework alongside other absorbed enactments such as the epf Act and esi Act

The Code on Social Security, 2020, in absorbing the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as substantially amended in 2017) into its consolidated framework, generally retains the core substantive protections established under the original legislation, including the differentiated duration of maternity benefit based on the number of surviving children, the extension of benefit to commissioning and adopting mothers reflecting evolving family formation methods, the requirement for creche facilities in establishments meeting prescribed thresholds, and protection against discharge or dismissal connected to maternity-related absence. This continuity reflects the broader codification exercise's general structural approach, which seeks to consolidate and reorganise the previously separate labour and social security statutes into unified codes while substantively preserving the established protective entitlements that workers had accumulated under the prior legislative framework.

Source note: Code on Social Security 2020 - Retained Maternity Benefit Provisions

Correct answer: B. Where a dispute is raised and adjudicated on behalf of workmen generally (often through their trade union or other representative body), the resulting award is generally understood to bind not merely the specific individuals who happened to be parties to or directly involved in the proceedings, but the broader body of workmen in the establishment (or relevant category) on whose behalf the dispute was raised, reflecting the collective and representative character of industrial dispute resolution under the Act, broadly paralleling (though not identical to) the representative suit principles found in civil procedure

Where an industrial dispute is raised and adjudicated on behalf of workmen generally, typically through their trade union or other representative collective body, the resulting award is generally understood to bind not merely the specific individuals who were personally parties to or directly involved in the proceedings, but the broader body of workmen in the establishment (or the relevant category of workmen) on whose behalf the dispute was originally raised and espoused. This reflects the inherently collective and representative character of industrial dispute resolution under the Industrial Disputes Act, which is fundamentally oriented towards resolving disputes affecting groups of workmen rather than purely individual grievances (the latter being more specifically addressed through provisions such as Section 2A), broadly paralleling, though not being strictly identical to, the representative suit principles found in civil procedure law, such as those reflected in Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Source note: Representative Character of Industrial Dispute Adjudication

Correct answer: B. The Code contemplates a worker re-skilling fund, to which the employer contributes an amount equivalent to fifteen days' wages last drawn by a retrenched worker (or such other number of days as may be notified by the appropriate government), within a prescribed time, intended to facilitate the retrenched worker's transition through skill development for alternative employment opportunities, reflecting an attempt to provide a forward-looking, transition-oriented dimension to the consequences of retrenchment, beyond the traditional notice-and-compensation model under the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 introduces the concept of a worker re-skilling fund, requiring the employer to contribute an amount equivalent to fifteen days' wages last drawn by the retrenched worker (or such other number of days as may be notified by the appropriate government) into this fund within a prescribed time period following retrenchment. This provision reflects an attempt to provide a forward-looking, transition-oriented supplement to the traditional retrenchment compensation framework inherited from the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act, seeking to facilitate the retrenched worker's acquisition of new skills relevant to securing alternative employment opportunities, rather than the retrenchment consequence being limited purely to a one-time financial compensation payment without any forward-looking skill development support mechanism.

Source note: Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Worker Re-Skilling Fund

Correct answer: B. The Code empowers the appropriate government to prescribe a single, simplified format and consolidated set of registers, records, and returns to be maintained by employers in electronic or other prescribed form for purposes connected with the wage-related provisions of the Code (such as minimum wages, bonus, and timely payment), reflecting an attempt to reduce the previously fragmented and overlapping documentation requirements that existed across the separate predecessor enactments (such as the Payment of Wages Act and Minimum Wages Act) before their consolidation, easing the compliance burden on employers while still ensuring adequate record-keeping for enforcement purposes

The Code on Wages, 2019 introduces an important compliance simplification measure by empowering the appropriate government to prescribe a single, simplified, and consolidated format for the registers, records, and returns that employers are required to maintain in connection with the wage-related provisions of the Code, with provision for such records to be maintained in electronic or other prescribed form. This reflects a deliberate attempt to reduce the compliance burden on employers that had previously resulted from the fragmented and sometimes overlapping documentation requirements scattered across the separate predecessor enactments (such as the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) prior to their consolidation, while still ensuring that adequate records are maintained to facilitate effective enforcement of the substantive wage-related protections under the Code.

Source note: Code on Wages 2019 - Simplified Registers and Returns

Correct answer: B. The Code generally continues the underlying approach of distinguishing coverage based on whether power is used in the manufacturing process, though the Code has revised the specific numerical thresholds compared to the original Factories Act, 1948 figures (which were ten or more workers with power, and twenty or more workers without power), reflecting the broader codification exercise's general pattern of revisiting and adjusting numerical thresholds across various provisions while retaining the underlying structural and conceptual approach of the predecessor legislation

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, in absorbing the Factories Act, 1948, generally continues the underlying conceptual approach of distinguishing factory coverage based on whether power is used in the manufacturing process, while revising the specific numerical worker thresholds compared to the original Factories Act figures, reflecting the broader codification exercise's general pattern across multiple provisions and codes of revisiting and recalibrating numerical thresholds (such as the increased Chapter VB threshold from 100 to 300 workers under the Industrial Relations Code) while substantially retaining the underlying structural and conceptual framework inherited from the predecessor legislation that the new codes have absorbed and consolidated.

Source note: Occupational Safety Health and Working Conditions Code 2020 - Factory Coverage Threshold

Correct answer: B. The two National Commissions on Labour conducted comprehensive reviews of the prevailing labour law framework and industrial relations practices at their respective points in time, making recommendations for legislative reform addressing matters such as trade union recognition, simplification and consolidation of labour legislation, and adaptation of the legal framework to changing economic and industrial conditions, with the Second Commission's recommendations in particular being widely regarded as having significantly influenced the subsequent move towards the comprehensive codification of central labour legislation into the four labour codes enacted from 2019 onwards

The First National Commission on Labour (1969) and the Second National Commission on Labour (2002) each conducted comprehensive, periodic reviews of the prevailing Indian labour law framework and industrial relations practices, generating influential reports containing recommendations for legislative and policy reform addressing matters including trade union recognition mechanisms, the simplification and consolidation of what had become an increasingly fragmented body of central labour legislation, and the adaptation of the legal framework to evolving economic and industrial conditions over time. The Second Commission's recommendations, in particular, are widely regarded by labour law scholars and policymakers as having significantly informed and influenced the subsequent and substantial move towards the comprehensive codification of central labour legislation into the four consolidated labour codes (the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Social Security, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code) enacted progressively from 2019 onwards, illustrating the long gestation period and policy continuity underlying this significant legislative reform.

Source note: Report of the National Commission on Labour 1969; Report of the Second National Commission on Labour 2002