Question map
Consider the following statements : As per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018 1. if rules for fixed-term employment are implemented, it becomes easier for the firms/companies to lay off workers 2. no notice of termination of employment shall be necessary in the case of temporary workman Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is option C because both statements are correct.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018 introduced the concept of "fixed-term employment" in all sectors[1]. These rules provided proportionate benefits for fixed-term employment workers, including gratuity after one year of service, without laying down the need for notice or retrenchment benefit on non-renewal of contract[2]. This makes Statement 1 correct, as the absence of notice or retrenchment benefit requirements on non-renewal makes it easier for firms to end employment relationships with fixed-term workers.
Statement 2 is also correct. The amendment explicitly states that "no notice of termination of employment shall be necessary in the case of temporary workman whether monthly rated, weekly rated or piece rated and[3] probationers or badli workmen". This provision directly exempts employers from giving termination notice to temporary workers.
Therefore, both statements accurately reflect the provisions of the 2018 Amendment Rules, making option C the correct answer.
Sources- [1] https://frontline.thehindu.com/social-issues/unsettling-reform/article10106636.ece
- [3] https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/fte_final_notification.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question looks like a niche legal bouncer, but it was actually a 'Sitter' for those using updated standard books. The exact statements appeared as a practice MCQ in Nitin Singhaniaâs Economy book. It proves that 'Current Affairs' in Economy often solidifies into textbook updates within a year.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Do the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018 state that implementing rules for fixed-term employment makes it easier for firms/companies to lay off workers?
- Statement 2: Do the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018 state that no notice of termination of employment is necessary in the case of a temporary workman?
- Explicitly notes the amendment extended fixed-term employment to all sectors and provided benefits without requiring notice or retrenchment benefit on non-renewal.
- The absence of a requirement for notice or retrenchment benefit on non-renewal implies employers can end fixed-term contracts without following layoff/retrenchment procedures, making it easier for firms.
- States that the March 2018 notification amended the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act/Rules and introduced the concept of fixed-term employment in all sectors.
- Identifies the amended rules as the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018, providing the regulatory basis for the fixed-term employment framework referenced in other passages.
States that the Ministry notified fixedâterm employment for all sectors and defines workmen on fixedâterm contracts by written contract for a fixed period.
A student could infer that fixedâterm contracts (ending by expiry) provide an alternative to statutory layoff/retrenchment procedures and check whether expiry avoids prior government permission requirements.
Defines fixedâterm employment as hiring for a specific period or task where after expiry the worker leaves and there is 'no case of firing', implying termination occurs by contract expiry rather than formal retrenchment.
Combine this definition with knowledge of layoff/retrenchment rules to assess if contract expiry functions as an easier route for firms compared with seeking permission to retrench.
Explains that the Industrial Disputes Act requires prior government permission for layoff/retrenchment (a major bottleneck) for firms above thresholds.
Use this rule to reason that any contractual form that avoids triggering retrenchment procedures (e.g., fixedâterm expiry) could make reducing workforce administratively easier for firms.
Shows the exact MCQ claim exists in study material: 'If rules for fixedâterm employment are implemented, it becomes easier for the firms/companies to lay off workers.'
A student can treat this as an asserted proposition to be tested by comparing the statutory effects of fixedâterm contracts and retrenchment rules in the ID Act and subsequent codes.
Notes central introduction of fixedâterm provisions but that states had not notified them, indicating partial/varied implementation across jurisdictions.
A student could map which states implemented the rules (using external sources) to see whether firms in notified states can more easily reduce staff via fixedâterm hires than in nonânotified states.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.