UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

21. For the purpose of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a ‘chil

For the purpose of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a ‘child’ means a person who has not completed the age of

[amp_mcq option1=”14 years” option2=”16 years” option3=”18 years” option4=”21 years” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

As per Section 2(aa) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2006, a ‘child’ is defined as “a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years”.

Before the 2006 amendment, ‘child’ was defined as a person who had not completed the age of sixteen years. The amendment raised the age to 18 years to align with international conventions and other domestic laws like the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Section 2(f) defines ‘minor’ as a person who has completed sixteen years but not eighteen years.

26. Under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

Under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the Central Government may authorize an employee to maintain a Provident Fund Account in relation to the establishment, upon an application made by the employer and majority of such establishment’s employees provided that the number of persons employed in that establishment is not less than

[amp_mcq option1=”20″ option2=”50″ option3=”100″ option4=”200″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

The question refers to the Central Government authorizing an establishment to maintain its own Provident Fund Account upon application by the employer and majority of employees. This scenario typically applies to establishments that are mandatorily covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and seek exemption from the Government Scheme to maintain their own provident fund trust (under Section 17(1A)). The EPF Act mandatorily applies to establishments employing 20 or more persons (Section 1(3)). An establishment must be covered by the Act to apply for such an exemption. Therefore, the number of persons employed in that establishment must be “not less than” the threshold for mandatory coverage, which is 20.

Section 1(3)(a) states the Act applies to factories engaged in scheduled industries employing 20 or more persons. Section 1(3)(b) states the Act applies to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons notified by the Central Government. Section 1(5) (formerly 1(4)) allows voluntary coverage for establishments with less than 20 employees, but the question’s condition “not less than” points towards the mandatory coverage threshold. Section 17 deals with exemptions, where the Central Government can authorize an establishment to maintain its own PF if it provides benefits not less favourable than the statutory scheme. This exemption is available to establishments to which the Act applies, i.e., generally those with 20 or more employees.

27. Which one of the following is a condition precedent for appointment as

Which one of the following is a condition precedent for appointment as the presiding officer of a labour court under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

[amp_mcq option1=”Holding judicial office in India for a minimum of 15 years” option2=”Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge” option3=”Minimum 20 years of experience as presiding officer of a labour court constituted under any State Act” option4=”Minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifies the qualifications for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court. One of the conditions listed in Section 7(3)(b) is that the person “has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge”. Option B states “Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge”. Since 5 years is “not less than three years”, this condition is fulfilled by a person with 5 years of experience as a District Judge or Additional District Judge.

Other qualifications under Section 7(3) include being a High Court Judge (a), holding any judicial office in India for not less than seven years (c), or being the presiding officer of a State Labour Court for not less than five years (d). Options A and C list judicial office and State Labour Court PO experience, respectively, but with incorrect minimum durations (15 years vs 7 years for judicial office; 20 years vs 5 years for State Labour Court PO). Option D, minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III, is a specific rank which usually falls under the general category of “judicial office” requiring 7 years experience under Section 7(3)(c); 3 years in IJS Grade III typically does not meet the 7-year threshold for judicial office, nor is it usually equivalent to District Judge experience. While technically options A and C also state durations exceeding the minimum requirements of the Act, implying they are also valid conditions, the question asks for “which one of the following is a condition precedent”. Option B presents a specific category (DJ/Addl DJ) with a duration (5 years) that clearly meets the minimum requirement (3 years) for that category as listed in the Act. Assuming the question is well-posed and intends a single correct answer, Option B is the most direct representation of a valid condition derived from the Act’s specified categories, despite the duration being higher than the minimum.

28. According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the follo

According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is a condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman employed in any industry for not less than one year ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Three months’ notice in writing” option2=”One month’s notice in writing” option3=”Wages equivalent to minimum three months’ average pay for every year of completed service to be paid” option4=”Wages equivalent to minimum one month’s average pay for every year of completed service to be paid” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. These conditions are:
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner has been served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

Option B directly corresponds to condition (a) of Section 25F.

Retrenchment compensation (condition b) is 15 days’ average pay per year of service, not minimum one or three months’ average pay per year as stated in options C and D. Option A states three months’ notice, which is incorrect; the requirement is one month’s notice or pay in lieu.

30. ‘A’, a carrier, is entrusted by ‘Z’ with property to be carried by lan

‘A’, a carrier, is entrusted by ‘Z’ with property to be carried by land or by water. ‘A’ dishonestly misappropriates the property. Which one of the following offences was committed by ‘A’ ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Criminal breach of trust” option2=”Dishonest misappropriation of property” option3=”Mischief” option4=”Theft” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

When a carrier is entrusted by a person with property to be carried, and the carrier dishonestly misappropriates that property, this act constitutes the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– Section 405 IPC defines Criminal Breach of Trust. The key elements are: (1) entrustment of property or dominion over property, and (2) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property, or dishonest use or disposal of that property in violation of any legal direction or contract.
– In the given scenario, the carrier (‘A’) is entrusted with the property (‘Z’s property) for a specific purpose (carriage). When ‘A’ dishonestly misappropriates it, all elements of criminal breach of trust are met.
– Theft (Option D) involves taking property out of possession without consent, not necessarily after entrustment. Dishonest misappropriation of property (Section 403 IPC, Option B) is a less severe offence and applies when property is found and then dishonestly misappropriated, not typically when it is acquired through entrustment for a purpose. Mischief (Option C) involves causing destruction or damage to property.

– The relationship between the entruster and the person entrusted is crucial in Criminal Breach of Trust. The property is voluntarily handed over or control is given, unlike theft where property is taken from possession without consent.
– Section 407 IPC specifically deals with Criminal Breach of Trust by a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, prescribing a higher punishment (up to seven years imprisonment and fine) compared to general criminal breach of trust (up to three years imprisonment and fine). The act itself is Criminal Breach of Trust; Section 407 is an aggravated form of it.