The Parliamentary Act Archives

111. As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ‘Lay-off’

As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ‘Lay-off’ means the failure, refusal or inability of an employer to give employment to a workman whose name is borne on the master rolls of his industrial establishment and who has not been retrenched on account of

[amp_mcq option1=”shortage of coal or power” option2=”shortage of raw materials or breakdown of machinery” option3=”accumulation of stocks” option4=”All of the above” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D. As per the definition of ‘Lay-off’ in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the inability of an employer to give employment can be on account of any of the reasons listed in options A, B, and C.

Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “lay-off”. The definition includes “the failure, refusal or inability of an employer on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other connected reason to give employment…”.
Let’s check the options against this definition:
A) shortage of coal or power: Both are explicitly mentioned in the definition.
B) shortage of raw materials or breakdown of machinery: Both are explicitly mentioned in the definition.
C) accumulation of stocks: Explicitly mentioned in the definition.
Since all the reasons listed in options A, B, and C are included in the statutory definition of ‘lay-off’, the correct answer is that lay-off can occur due to All of the above.

Lay-off is a temporary deprivation of employment to a workman by the employer for reasons beyond the employer’s control or specific operational reasons listed in the Act. During lay-off, the workman’s name is retained on the muster roll, and they are entitled to lay-off compensation under certain conditions as specified in the Act.

112. As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one

As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is *not* included in the term ‘wages’?

[amp_mcq option1=”Dearness allowance” option2=”Any travelling allowance” option3=”Any bonus” option4=”The value of any house accommodation” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is C, as ‘any bonus’ is explicitly excluded from the definition of ‘wages’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “wages”. It includes various forms of remuneration and allowances but also lists specific exclusions.
A) Dearness allowance: Included in the definition [Section 2(rr)(i)].
B) Any travelling allowance: ‘Travelling concession’ is included [Section 2(rr)(iii)]. ‘Travelling allowance’ is generally considered a type of allowance and is typically included unless specifically excluded.
C) Any bonus: Explicitly excluded from the definition of wages [Section 2(rr)(a)].
D) The value of any house accommodation: Included in the definition [Section 2(rr)(ii)].
Therefore, among the given options, bonus is the item that is explicitly stated as *not* being included in the definition of ‘wages’ under the Act.

The definition of wages under the Industrial Disputes Act is specific to this Act and may differ from definitions in other labour laws (like the Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, etc.). The exclusion of bonus from wages under the ID Act affects calculations related to concepts like lay-off compensation, which are based on wages.

113. As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute

As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute to be termed as ‘Industrial Dispute’ must be between

[amp_mcq option1=”employers and employers” option2=”workmen and workmen” option3=”employers and workmen” option4=”All of the above” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D. As per the definition in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an ‘Industrial Dispute’ must be between employers and employers, employers and workmen, or workmen and workmen.

Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “industrial dispute” as “any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person”.
Let’s examine the options:
A) employers and employers: Included in the definition.
B) workmen and workmen: Included in the definition.
C) employers and workmen: Included in the definition.
Since all three pairs are explicitly mentioned in the definition, a dispute between any of these parties can be termed an ‘Industrial Dispute’ if it meets the other criteria related to employment terms or labour conditions.

The broad definition of ‘industrial dispute’ in the Act is intended to cover a wide range of conflicts arising in industrial relations, allowing for their resolution through the mechanisms provided by the Act, such as conciliation, arbitration, and adjudication. The dispute must involve persons who fall within the definitions of ’employer’ or ‘workman’ under the Act.

114. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which one of t

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which one of the following types of questions is *not* lawful in cross-examination ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Questions which shake the credibility of a witness” option2=”Questions about the general immoral character of a rape victim/prosecutrix” option3=”Questions to test the veracity of a witness” option4=”Questions related to the position of a witness in life” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is B, as questions about the general immoral character of a rape victim/prosecutrix are generally not lawful in cross-examination, especially in the context of sexual offence cases.

Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits certain questions in cross-examination to test the veracity of a witness, discover their position in life, and shake their credit by injuring their character. However, this general permission is subject to restrictions, particularly concerning victims of sexual offences. Following amendments (e.g., post Nirbhaya case) and judicial pronouncements, evidence or questions regarding the past sexual experience or general immoral character of the victim in sexual assault cases, including rape, are considered irrelevant and are generally not permissible to infer consent or affect the victim’s credibility regarding the incident itself.
A) Questions which shake the credibility of a witness are generally lawful under Section 146(3).
B) Questions about the general immoral character of a rape victim/prosecutrix are specifically restricted and often deemed unlawful, as they are irrelevant to the issue of consent or the credibility of the victim concerning the sexual assault incident itself.
C) Questions to test the veracity of a witness are lawful under Section 146(1).
D) Questions related to the position of a witness in life are lawful under Section 146(2).

The rationale behind restricting questions about the sexual history or character of a rape victim is to prevent re-victimization and ensure that the trial focuses on the conduct of the accused and the issue of consent related to the specific incident, rather than putting the victim’s life or character on trial. This is a crucial reform reflecting evolving understanding of sexual assault.

115. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evid

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence relating to a document *cannot* be given when the original

[amp_mcq option1=”is of such a nature as not to be easily movable” option2=”is a private document” option3=”is destroyed or lost” option4=”consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is B. Secondary evidence relating to a document *cannot* be given merely because the original is a private document, unless other conditions specified in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are met.

Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that documents must be proved by primary evidence (the original document) except in the cases mentioned in Section 65. Section 65 lists the circumstances in which secondary evidence may be given.
A) If the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable (Section 65(c)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
B) If the original is a private document, secondary evidence *can* only be given if one of the conditions under Section 65 (e.g., original lost, destroyed, in possession of the opponent, etc.) is satisfied. Merely being a private document does not *allow* secondary evidence; conversely, secondary evidence *cannot* be given *unless* one of the Section 65 conditions applies, even if it is a private document. This contrasts with options A, C, and D, which are specific conditions that *permit* secondary evidence.
C) If the original is destroyed or lost (Section 65(b)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
D) If the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court (Section 65(f)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
The question asks when secondary evidence *cannot* be given. Options A, C, and D are situations where it *can* be given. Being a private document (B) is not, by itself, a reason to allow secondary evidence; primary evidence is mandatory unless a specific exception (like those in A, C, D, or others in 65) applies. Therefore, secondary evidence *cannot* be given simply because it’s a private document; it requires an additional condition from Section 65 to be met.

The general rule under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that the best evidence available must be produced, which for documents is the primary evidence (the original). Secondary evidence is only admitted as an exception under specified circumstances detailed in Section 65. The distinction between public and private documents is relevant in Section 65(d) and (e), where certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence, and special provisions apply to documents of which certified copies are permitted by law.

116. Which one of the following statements is not correct ? A) In the absen

Which one of the following statements is not correct ?
A) In the absence of a specific order of confirmation or a declaration of satisfactory completion of probation, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force is deemed to be on probation.
B) A member of the Central Industrial Security Force is deemed to have successfully completed his probation, if it is not extended before the completion of the probation period specified in the relevant rules.
C) No member of the Force shall ordinarily be kept on probation for more than twice the period prescribed in the relevant rules.
D) Members of the Force appointed on deputation/absorption need not be kept on probation.

[amp_mcq option1=”In the absence of a specific order of confirmation or a declaration of satisfactory completion of probation, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force is deemed to be on probation.” option2=”A member of the Central Industrial Security Force is deemed to have successfully completed his probation, if it is not extended before the completion of the probation period specified in the relevant rules.” option3=”No member of the Force shall ordinarily be kept on probation for more than twice the period prescribed in the relevant rules.” option4=”Members of the Force appointed on deputation/absorption need not be kept on probation.” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Rule 10(1) of the CISF Rules, 2001 states that a member shall be on probation. The second proviso to Rule 10(1) states that “in the absence of any specific order of confirmation or a declaration that the probation has been satisfactorily completed, the member shall be deemed to be on probation.” Statement A is consistent with this proviso. Statement B claims that a member is *deemed to have successfully completed* probation if it is not extended before the completion of the period. This directly contradicts the rule, which states they are *deemed to be on probation* in such a scenario (unless confirmed). Statement B is therefore not correct. Statements C and D are correct as per Rule 10(2) and Rule 10(5) respectively.

– Rule 10 of CISF Rules, 2001 governs probation.
– Probation period and possible extensions are defined.
– Deemed status during probation is specifically regulated.
– Members appointed on deputation/absorption have different probation requirements.

– Successful completion of probation typically requires a formal order of confirmation or a declaration to that effect. Merely not extending the probation period does not automatically lead to deemed successful completion or confirmation under these rules; it leads to the member continuing to be on probation until an order is issued.

117. Which one of the following statements relating to the CISF Rules, 2001

Which one of the following statements relating to the CISF Rules, 2001, is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”A specially deserving Constable with fifteen years of service may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable on the basis of his/her service records.” option2=”A specially deserving Head Constable with twenty years of service may be promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector on the basis of his/her service records.” option3=”A specially deserving Assistant Sub-Inspector with twenty-five years of service may be promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector on the basis of his/her service records.” option4=”The total number of such promotions of deserving members of the Force should not exceed 10 percent of the posts which are to be filled by the method of promotion.” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Rule 13(3) of the CISF Rules, 2001 provides for promotion based on meritorious service for Constables, Head Constables, and Assistant Sub-Inspectors with specified years of service in the rank (15, 20, and 25 years respectively). Rule 13(3)(iv) states that “The total number of such promotions in each rank as specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) shall not exceed five per cent of the posts which are to be filled by the method of promotion or five per cent of the respective strength of the rank, whichever is less.” Statement D says the limit is 10 percent, which is incorrect as per Rule 13(3)(iv) which specifies a 5 percent limit.

– CISF Rules, 2001 govern the service conditions, including promotions.
– Rule 13 provides for promotion methods.
– Rule 13(3) specifically deals with promotions based on meritorious service/long service for lower ranks.
– There is a percentage cap on such special promotions.

– Statements A, B, and C accurately reflect the service years required for consideration under the meritorious service promotion scheme for Constable, Head Constable, and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively, as per Rule 13(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).

118. Which of the following pair(s) of term(s) and meaning as per the provi

Which of the following pair(s) of term(s) and meaning as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is/are correctly matched ?

1. Seaman : Any person forming part of the crew of any ship but does not include the master of the ship.
2. Total disablement : Such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature as incapacitating a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.
3. Employer : Any body of persons which is incorporated excluding the managing agent of the employer.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”1 and 2 only” option3=”2 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Checking the definitions in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923):
1. ‘Seaman’ is defined in Section 2(1)(k) as “any person forming part of the crew of any ship, but does not include the master of the ship”. Statement 1 is correctly matched.
2. ‘Total disablement’ is defined in Section 2(1)(l) as “such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement”. Statement 2 is correctly matched.
3. ‘Employer’ is defined in Section 2(1)(d) and includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not, and *includes* any managing agent of an employer. Statement 3 incorrectly states that it *excludes* the managing agent.
Therefore, only pairs 1 and 2 are correctly matched.

– The definitions in the Act are crucial for understanding its scope and application.
– Specific definitions like Seaman, Total Disablement, and Employer have precise meanings in the context of the Act.

– The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was renamed as the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 by an amendment in 2010.
– The Act provides for compensation to employees and their dependents in case of injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment.

119. Which one of the following cannot be the subject matter of theft ?

Which one of the following cannot be the subject matter of theft ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Human beings” option2=”Crops” option3=”Animals” option4=”Electricity” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The offence of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is defined as the dishonest taking of *movable property* out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent. Human beings are not considered property under the law and cannot be the subject matter of theft. Offences related to taking or detaining persons against their will are covered under kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, etc.

– Theft applies only to movable property.
– Movable property is defined in Section 22 IPC as corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
– Explanation 1 to Section 378 clarifies that things attached to the earth, which are agreed to be severed, are deemed to be movable property for the purpose of theft as soon as they are severed. This applies to crops, trees, etc.

– Crops are movable property when severed from the land.
– Animals are movable property.
– Electricity, when abstracted or diverted dishonestly, has been held by courts to be capable of being stolen, treating it as movable property or energy.
– Human beings are not objects of ownership and therefore not property.

120. The method of recruitment, age limits and other qualifications relatin

The method of recruitment, age limits and other qualifications relating to each post in the Central Industrial Security Force are specified in which one of the following documents ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968″ option2=”The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001″ option3=”Recruitment Rules, as amended from time to time” option4=”Agreement to be signed by every enrolled member at the time of initial appointment” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

While the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 provides the legislative framework for the force, and the CISF Rules, 2001 are framed under the Act to provide detailed service conditions, the specific methods of recruitment, age limits, educational qualifications, physical standards, etc., for each post are primarily laid down in specific Recruitment Rules framed for different ranks or groups of posts within the force. These Recruitment Rules are often amended from time to time.

– Acts provide the main legal basis.
– Rules (like CISF Rules) provide general service conditions, discipline, and broad recruitment principles.
– Recruitment Rules are the detailed documents specifying eligibility criteria, selection procedures, and methodologies for specific posts.
– An agreement at the time of appointment outlines individual terms, not general recruitment rules.

– For most government services and forces in India, specific Recruitment Rules, often called Service Rules, govern the entry qualifications and methods. These rules are framed under the relevant Act and/or the main Service Rules governing general conditions.