With reference to casual workers employed in India, consider the following statements : 1. All casual workers are entitled for Employees Provident Fund coverage. 2. All casual workers are entitled for regular working hours and overtime payment. 3. The government can by a notification specify that an establishment or industry shall pay wages only through its bank account. Which of the above statements are correct?

States the statutory trigger for EPF: establishments with more than 20 workers must register with EPFO, and only employees with salary up to Rs.15,000 contribute to EPF—implying not every worker in every workplace is automatically covered.

A student could combine this with the fact that many casual workers earn daily wages or higher/lower pay to infer that some casuals (in small workplaces or above the salary threshold) may be outside mandatory EPF coverage and thus test the statement.

Explains the Code on Social Security rule: EPFO coverage applies to establishments having 20 or more workers and smaller establishments may join voluntarily—showing coverage depends on establishment size.

By noting that many casual workers are employed in small establishments or the unorganised sector, a student can suspect that many casuals lack mandatory EPF entitlement and seek confirmation.

Defines casual workers as daily-wage employees who are not given social security benefits like provident fund, explicitly linking casual status to typical exclusion from PF.

A student could use this definition plus data on the composition of casual employment to judge whether 'all casual workers' would realistically be covered by EPF.

Notes absence of regulations protecting freelancers and mentions lack of retirement benefits for many workers in gig/informal economy, indicating gaps in social security coverage for non-regular workers.

Combine with knowledge that casual workers often work informally or in gig arrangements to infer many may be outside statutory EPF coverage, prompting targeted verification.

MGNREGA explicitly requires that programme wages be paid directly into bank or post office accounts, showing the government can mandate a specific mode of wage payment for a central scheme.

A student could use this precedent to argue the Centre has in practice required bank/post payments for workers under statutory programmes and then check whether similar powers exist for other categories of workers or via notification under labour laws.

The Code on Wages (2019) governs wage-related matters (e.g., timelines for payment), indicating the central government has regulatory authority over payment rules for wages.

One could examine the Code's provisions and subordinate powers (rules/notifications) to see if the Centre can prescribe payment mode (bank-only) for establishments via notification.

The Minimum Wages Act historically protects casual workers and wage rates are set by Centre and States, showing labour law regimes already target casual workers and divide responsibilities between governments.

Combine this with knowledge of which statutory acts allow notifications to prescribe conditions of employment to assess if mode-of-payment could be similarly imposed for casual workers.

The RBI-created payment banks aim to bring low-income and migrant workers into the formal banking system, providing institutional capacity to implement bank-based wage payments.

A student could use this to assess practical feasibility and whether infrastructure exists for large-scale mandatory bank payments to casual workers.

Provisions addressing inter-state migrant workers include maintaining databases and employer responsibilities, implying the government can impose administrative obligations on employers for worker welfare.

This pattern suggests a basis for the Centre or States to require employers to adopt specific practices (potentially including payment modes) and prompts checking the statutory scope for such notifications.