UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

1. During the pendency of any proceeding before a Board of Conciliation,

During the pendency of any proceeding before a Board of Conciliation, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, which of the following actions cannot be taken by an employer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

1. Altering in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the service conditions applicable to a workman immediately before commencement of such proceedings
2. Discharging or punishing a workman for a misconduct that is not connected with the pending dispute
3. Discharging or punishing a protected workman after instituting a Disciplinary Committee against him

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Join Our Telegram Channel

2 only

3 only

1 and 2

1 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B, meaning only statement 3 describes an action that cannot be taken by an employer during the pendency of proceedings without following a specific procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 imposes restrictions on an employer’s ability to alter service conditions or discharge/punish workmen during the pendency of conciliation, arbitration, or adjudication proceedings.
– Section 33(1): Requires express permission from the authority for actions concerning any matter connected with the dispute, including alteration of service conditions or discharge/punishment.
– Section 33(2): Allows alterations in service conditions regarding any matter *not* connected with the dispute, or discharge/punishment for misconduct *not* connected with the dispute. However, these actions are subject to conditions: the workman must be paid one month’s wages, and an application for approval of the action must be made simultaneously to the authority. This implies such actions *can* be taken without *prior* permission, but require subsequent approval.
– Section 33(3): Provides special protection for ‘protected workmen’ (trade union office bearers). Any action against them, including discharge or punishment, whether or not connected with the dispute, requires *express prior permission* from the authority.

Statement 1 describes altering service conditions not connected with the dispute. This is permissible under Section 33(2), subject to conditions, meaning it *can* be taken.
Statement 2 describes discharging or punishing a workman for misconduct not connected with the dispute. This is permissible under Section 33(2), subject to conditions, meaning it *can* be taken.
Statement 3 describes discharging or punishing a ‘protected workman’. Under Section 33(3), this action *cannot* be taken without express prior permission from the authority. This is a more stringent restriction than under 33(2). Therefore, among the given options, this action is the one that “cannot be taken” unilaterally or without the required prior approval process.

The purpose of Section 33 is to maintain the status quo during proceedings to prevent victimisation of workmen and ensure smooth settlement of industrial disputes. The provisions of Section 33(2) are often referred to as involving ‘controlled’ alterations or actions, while Section 33(3) for protected workmen requires strict ‘prior permission’.

2. Which one of the following statements in the context of the Employees’

Which one of the following statements in the context of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 is correct?

The lump-sum or half-monthly payment payable under the Act may be assigned or charged or liable to pass on to any person other than the employee.

A notice of compensation may be entertained by the Commissioner, even if the notice of the accident was not provided when the accident occurred.

Any right to receive half-monthly payment can under no circumstances be redeemed by payment of a lump-sum of such amount.

The half-monthly payment payable under the Act may be reviewed by the Commissioner in case there is a change in the condition of the employee.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Let’s examine each statement in the context of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923:
– Statement A: Section 8(1) prohibits the assignment or charge of lump sums or half-monthly payments, or their passing to any person other than the employee or his dependents. So, the statement that it *may* be assigned or charged is incorrect.
– Statement B: Section 10 requires notice of the accident as soon as practicable and a claim within two years. However, the proviso to Section 10(1) allows the Commissioner to entertain a claim even if notice was not given in due time if the employer had knowledge of the accident or if failure was due to sufficient cause. Thus, it *may* be entertained. This statement is correct.
– Statement C: Section 7 allows for the redemption of half-monthly payments by a lump sum under certain circumstances determined by the Commissioner. Therefore, it *can* under certain circumstances be redeemed, contrary to the statement. This is incorrect.
– Statement D: Section 7 explicitly provides for the review of half-monthly payments by the Commissioner on the application of either the employer or employee, accompanied by a medical certificate indicating a change in the condition of the employee. This directly matches the statement. This is correct.

Both B and D are factually correct based on the provisions. However, typically in UPSC MCQs asking for ‘which one is correct’, only one option is intended as the best fit or most direct statement from the Act. Statement D describes a routine process (review of half-monthly payment based on changed condition) directly enabled by Section 7. Statement B describes an exception to a procedural requirement (timely notice) allowed under a proviso to Section 10, which is conditional on the Commissioner’s discretion based on specific facts (employer knowledge or sufficient cause). Statement D is a more general statement of a power available under the Act whenever the condition (change in employee’s state) is met, whereas B relies on specific circumstances to override a default rule. Therefore, D is the most likely intended correct answer as a direct statement of a power/procedure under the Act.

The question tests various aspects of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, including assignment of compensation, notice requirements, redemption of payments, and review of payments.

Section 8 deals with the distribution of compensation. Section 9 prohibits contracting out and assignment of compensation. Section 10 deals with notice and claim. Section 7 deals with the review of half-monthly payments.

Join Our Telegram Channel

3. Consider the following statements in respect of granting exemption fro

Consider the following statements in respect of granting exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 :

1. In case the appropriate government is of the opinion that the rules of provident fund as to the rate of contributions of an establishment are not less favourable than those specified in the Act, exemption may be granted.
2. In case the employees in an establishment are in enjoyment of benefits in nature of provident fund, pension or gratuity, which are not less favourable to the employees than the benefits provided under the Act, exemption may be granted.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Join Our Telegram Channel

2 only

3 only

1 and 2

1 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for the power to grant exemption.
– Statement 1: Section 17(1)(a) allows the appropriate government to grant exemption if the rules of provident fund of the establishment are, in its opinion, not less favourable to the employees than those specified in the Act or Scheme. This matches statement 1.
– Statement 2: Section 17(1)(b) allows the appropriate government to grant exemption if the employees are in enjoyment of benefits in the nature of provident fund, pension, or gratuity which are, on the whole, not less favourable to the employees than the benefits provided under the Act or Scheme, without reducing their emoluments or other benefits. This matches statement 2.
Both statements describe valid grounds for granting exemption under the Act.

The question tests the conditions under which an establishment can be exempted from the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme as per the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Exemptions are generally granted to establishments that have their own private provident fund trusts or schemes that offer equivalent or superior benefits compared to the statutory scheme, provided certain conditions are met and the trust is managed according to prescribed rules and regulations.

4. In which of the following cases will an employer be held liable to pay

In which of the following cases will an employer be held liable to pay compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. Where a personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of his employment
2. Where the injury caused results in total disablement for two days
3. Where the personal injury to the employee is caused in the course of his employment

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2 only

2 and 3 only

1 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 outlines the employer’s liability. An employer is liable to pay compensation if personal injury is caused to an employee *by accident* arising *out of and in the course of his employment*.
– Statement 1 describes injury caused by an accident arising *out of* his employment.
– Statement 3 describes injury caused in the course of his employment.
Both ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of’ employment are required conditions under Section 3. Thus, statements 1 and 3 together (or representing the components of the requirement) lead to liability (assuming an accident occurred and resulted in the required level of disablement/death).
– Statement 2 mentions injury resulting in total disablement for two days. Section 3(1) contains a proviso that states the employer shall not be liable for compensation in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days. Since two days is less than three days, statement 2 describes a scenario where the employer is *not* liable for temporary disablement compensation.
Therefore, conditions leading to liability are represented by statements 1 and 3 (jointly), while statement 2 represents a case where liability for temporary disablement does not arise.

The question tests the core conditions for employer’s liability to pay compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, specifically the ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ principle and the minimum duration of disablement for temporary injuries.

The phrase “arising out of and in the course of his employment” is a crucial concept in workers’ compensation law, requiring a causal connection between the employment and the accident (‘arising out of’) and that the accident occurred while the employee was performing duties within the period and scope of employment (‘in the course of’).

5. Which of the following can be said to be classified as partial disable

Which of the following can be said to be classified as partial disablement?

1. In case the disablement is temporary, it reduces the earning capacity of the employee in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident
2. In case the disablement is temporary, it disables the person from performing all works that he was capable of performing at the time of the accident
3. In case the disablement is permanent, it reduces his earning capacity in every employment he is capable of undertaking at the time of the accident

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Join Our Telegram Channel

2 and 3

1 and 3

3 only

1 only

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(1)(g) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 defines “partial disablement”.
– It states that where the disablement is *of a temporary nature*, it means such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in *any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident*. This matches statement 1.
– It states that where the disablement is *of a permanent nature*, it means such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in *every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time*. This matches statement 3.
– Statement 2 describes a temporary disablement that disables the person from performing *all* work. This corresponds to the definition of temporary *total* disablement under Section 2(1)(l), not partial disablement.
Therefore, statements 1 and 3 describe partial disablement.

The question requires differentiating between temporary and permanent partial disablement as defined under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Total disablement (Section 2(1)(l)) means such disablement, whether temporary or permanent, as incapacitates an employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.

6. Which of the following categories of persons is/are ‘workmen’ under th

Which of the following categories of persons is/are ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. Persons employed to look after the administrative functions in an industry
2. Persons employed to do technical work in an industry
3. Persons employed as officer or employee of a prison
4. Persons employed to do operational work in an industry

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 and 4 only

2, 3 and 4

1, 2 and 4

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “workman”. It includes persons employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work.
– Statement 1: Persons employed to look after administrative functions can be workmen if their work falls under categories like clerical or operational, and they are not employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (which is an exclusion under Section 2(s)). Assuming this refers to non-managerial/non-supervisory administrative tasks, it can be included.
– Statement 2: Persons employed to do technical work are explicitly included.
– Statement 3: Persons employed as officer or employee of a prison are generally considered part of the police force, which is explicitly excluded from the definition of workman under Section 2(s).
– Statement 4: Persons employed to do operational work are explicitly included.
Considering the definition and exclusions, statements 2 and 4 are clearly included. Statement 1, interpreting ‘administrative functions’ as non-managerial/clerical/operational tasks, would also be included. Statement 3 is clearly excluded. Therefore, 1, 2 and 4 are considered ‘workmen’.

The question requires understanding the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including the types of work included and the categories of persons excluded.

The definition of workman excludes persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, persons employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding a certain limit, and persons employed in the army, navy, air force or the police.

7. Which one among the following amounts to retrenchment?

Which one among the following amounts to retrenchment?

X retires from his services on reaching the age of superannuation

X is terminated from his services due to non-renewal of his employment contract

X is terminated by his employer for any reasons whatsoever

X is terminated from his employment by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “retrenchment” as the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The definition explicitly lists certain exclusions.
– Option A (retirement on superannuation) is excluded by Section 2(oo)(a).
– Option B (termination due to non-renewal of contract) is excluded by Section 2(oo)(bb).
– Option D (termination as punishment) is excluded by the main definition itself (“otherwise than as a punishment”).
– Option C describes the general case of termination for *any* reason whatsoever, which is the core definition of retrenchment, provided it does not fall under any of the specified exclusions. Since A, B, and D are specific exclusions, C represents a situation that *amounts to* retrenchment.

The question tests the statutory definition of ‘retrenchment’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its specific exclusions.

Besides voluntary retirement, superannuation, non-renewal of contract, and punishment, termination due to continued ill-health and termination as a result of the closure of the undertaking are also generally excluded from the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo).

Join Our Telegram Channel

8. Which one among the following statements in respect of publication and

Which one among the following statements in respect of publication and commencement of an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Every arbitration award or award of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be published by the appropriate government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of any such award.

An award is enforceable on the expiration of 30 days from the date of its publication by the appropriate government.

The appropriate government can declare that such award is not enforceable even after the expiration of 30 days, in case it is of the opinion that it is inexpedient on public grounds affecting the national economy to give effect to the award.

The powers vested on the appropriate government with regard to making an award unenforceable are absolute and it is not required to refer the matter any further to any other authority.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 17A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that if the appropriate government makes a declaration that an award shall not become enforceable or shall operate subject to modifications on grounds affecting national economy or social justice, a copy of such declaration must be laid before the Legislature of the State or Parliament, as the case may be. Statement D claims that the government’s powers are absolute and it is not required to refer the matter any further to any other authority. This is incorrect because the requirement to lay the declaration before the legislature implies that the power is not absolute and is subject to legislative oversight.

The question assesses knowledge about the process of publication and commencement of awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the powers of the appropriate government concerning the enforceability of awards.

– Statement A is correct; Section 17 requires publication within 30 days of receipt.
– Statement B is correct; Section 17A makes the award enforceable on the expiration of 30 days from publication.
– Statement C is correct; Section 17A(1) allows the government to declare an award unenforceable or subject to modification on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice.

9. Which of the following is not correct? A voluntary reference of disput

Which of the following is not correct? A voluntary reference of dispute to arbitration under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be made

where the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended

when the employer and the workmen agree to refer the dispute to arbitration

at any time before or after the dispute has been referred under Section 10

to such person or persons as may be specified in the arbitration agreement

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 10A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the employer and the workmen may, by a written agreement, at any time *before* the dispute has been referred under Section 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, agree to refer the dispute to arbitration. Statement C says the reference can be made “at any time before or after the dispute has been referred under Section 10”. The inclusion of “after” makes this statement incorrect as per Section 10A.

The question tests the understanding of the conditions and timing for voluntary reference of an industrial dispute to arbitration under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

– Statement A is correct; a dispute can be referred when it exists or is apprehended (Section 10A(1)).
– Statement B is correct; the employer and workmen must agree to refer the dispute (Section 10A(1)).
– Statement D is correct; the dispute is referred to such person(s) as specified in the arbitration agreement (Section 10A(1)).

Join Our Telegram Channel

10. Under which one among the following Sections of the Right to Informati

Under which one among the following Sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is information pertaining to violation of human rights not exempted from disclosure by intelligence and security organizations established by the government?

Section 18

Section 20

Section 24

Section 26

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule from the purview of the Act. However, the proviso to Section 24(1) explicitly states that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded from the scope of the Act, even in the case of these organizations.

The question focuses on the exemptions provided to intelligence and security organizations under the RTI Act and the conditions under which such exemptions do not apply, particularly concerning human rights violations.

– Section 18 of the RTI Act deals with the powers and functions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions.
– Section 20 deals with penalties for non-compliance with the Act.
– Section 26 outlines the appropriate government’s duty to promote the development and organisation of training programmes and provide necessary machinery to enable people to exercise the right to information.

Join Our Telegram Channel