India's Four Labour Codes Expected to Be Implemented by April 1

Answer: B

Statement 1 is correct as the news explicitly states that the four codes consolidate 29 existing central labour laws. Statement 2 is correct; labour is indeed a Concurrent List subject, which means both the Centre and states can legislate on it. Statement 3 is incorrect. The news states that the delay is due to states needing to frame their own rules under the new codes, not the Central Government's inability to finalize rules.

Answer: D

Statements A, B, and C are correct. The Code on Social Security, 2020, aims to extend social security benefits to a wider range of workers, including the unorganized sector and gig workers (A). It consolidates various existing social security laws like EPF, ESI, and Maternity Benefit Act (B). It also provides for the establishment of a National Social Security Board for unorganised workers (C). Statement D is incorrect. While the code aims for wider coverage, it generally outlines mandatory contributions from both employers and employees (where applicable) for various schemes, not making employee contributions optional in certain sectors in a broad sense. The intent is to ensure comprehensive coverage and shared responsibility.

Answer: A

Statement 1 is correct. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, indeed raises the threshold for requiring government permission for retrenchment, layoff, or closure from 100 to 300 workers, aiming to provide greater flexibility to employers. Statement 2 is correct. The code broadens the definition of 'worker' to include persons employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages up to a specified limit (₹18,000 per month), which was not the case earlier. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Code mandates a 60-day notice period for strikes and lockouts, but it extends this requirement to *all* industrial establishments, not just public utility services, and also prohibits strikes/lockouts during conciliation/arbitration proceedings, making the 'all industrial establishments' part of the statement correct, but the 'mandates a 60-day notice period' is a simplification. The key change is extending the notice period requirement to *all* industrial establishments and prohibiting strikes during conciliation/arbitration, making the statement partially misleading in its simplicity. The 60-day notice was already there for public utility services. The new code extends the requirement of notice before strike/lockout to *all* industrial establishments and also prohibits strikes/lockouts during conciliation/arbitration proceedings and for 7 days thereafter. Thus, the statement 'mandates a 60-day notice period for strikes and lockouts in all industrial establishments' is a simplification and not entirely accurate in its implication of a new 60-day period for *all* cases where it didn't exist before. The primary change is the extension of the notice requirement and prohibition during proceedings.