On November 21, 2019, the Union Cabinet approved the introduction of Industrial Relations Code, 2019. This is the third code under labor reforms. Under the new code, forty-four laws are to be amalgamated into four codes. The four codes include wage rates, industrial relations and industrial security and labor welfare. The code intends to simplify and rationalize the Trade Union Act, 1926, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Employment Act, 1946. The code also features a two-member tribunal to fasten the disposal of cases. The code allows the companies to hire fixed-term contract workers. It defines fixed-term employment as a worker who can be hired for a duration of 3 months or 6 months or a year based on the season and orders. With the amalgamation of the laws, the process of registration and filing of returns will get streamlined. The process will help in improving ease of business and hence employment will increase. With the amalgamation of labor laws, the GoI intends to bring maximum governance with minimum laws. States like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, where the threshold has been enhanced from 100 to 300 workers by state amendments, have been protected in the Code. The Code also proposes setting up of a “re-skilling fund” for training of retrenched employees. The retrenched employee would be paid 15 days’ wages from the fund within 45 days of retrenchment. An industrial establishment will have to contribute an amount equal to 15 days’ wages or such other days as may be notified by the central government, to this fund for every worker retrenched. The labor ministry is of the view that the proposed amendments will make it easier for an employer to engage/disengage workers based on requirement. On the other hand, it is also being ensured that the retrenched worker is provided an opportunity of acquiring new skills through the re-skilling fund to enhance employability. “The ease of compliance of labor laws will promote setting up of more enterprises, thus catalyzing the creation of employment opportunities in the country,” it said.
1. Who is the main recipient of the benefit of the code mentioned above?
(a) The courts as it provides for faster disposal of cases.
(b) The employees as they can get hired for a fixed term period.
(c) The employer as it helps ease the business.
(d) The state as it increases the scope of employment and economy.
2. Amita is a worker in a small enterprise that makes jute bags for wholesale for various industries. She was let off her job due to over hiring laborers causing budget constraint to the employer. Which of the below is not one of the benefits she might be given under the above act?
(a) She would be given employment in some other industry as she was retrenched without any fault of her own.
(b) She would be compensated for 15 days of wages to sustain herself while she looks for another job.
(c) She can file a dispute claim in the two-bench tribunal and expect quick redressal.
(d) She would be provided an opportunity of acquiring new skills through the re-skilling fund to enhance employability.
3. What is not within the scope of achievement of the objective of the code?
(a) To fix terms of employment and help in job security of the labors.
(b) To amalgamate and unify laws including wage rates, social security, trade unions, industrial relations and industrial security and labor welfare.
(c) To create procedures and benches for faster disposal of labor disputes.
(d) To help in improving ease of business and hence employment will increase.
4. Rohit, Rahul and Priya are workers in the State of Kerala, in an industry of over 100 people who have been fired from their post, without any compensation. Can they seek any benefit under this Code?
(a) Yes, as they fulfill the conditions given in the above passage for application.
(b) No, as they are from the State of Kerala and it does not apply to the aid State.
(c) Yes, as their industry has over 100 people working, hence is qualified by the code.
(d) No, as there are no provisions or compensation discussed.
5. Ranbir runs a firm with 100 workers employed in handicraft work in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He recently had to fire 10 people due to budget cuts in production cost of his firm, before their fixed tenure was over. Would Ranbir be liable under the said code?
(a) Yes, as he runs an industry and hence would be liable to compensate them for the wages under the said code.
(b) No, as his industry is in Uttar Pradesh, hence he is exempted from the application of the code.
(c) Yes, as this a Union applied code, applicable everywhere, to all industries.
(d) No, as retrenchment of 10 workers puts him below the range of 100 workers quota and hence, he is not liable under the code.
1. Ans. (d) The main beneficiary of the above legislation would be the state as it gives them the benefit of ease of governance, increase in economy and employment. The rest were benefiting under the various laws anyways, the amalgamation is for State benefit. Option (a) is incorrect as the passage focuses on the benefits of such amendments rather than speedy disposal of trials. Option (b) is incorrect as we don’t whether employees enjoyed fixed employment or not before the amendment. Option (c) seems to be the correct answer but option (d) provides for more comprehensive and exhaustive choice. Hence, option (d) is the correct answer.
2. Ans. (a) She would not be ensured another job in another firm under this code, but the other benefits are extended to anyone wrongfully retrenched under this act. All the other options are explicitly stated in the passage and hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
3. Ans. (b) If read carefully option (b) provides for extraneous scope of application than the ones given in the code. Hence making it the incorrect answer as these are not the benefits extended in the code. All the other options are explicitly stated in the passage and hence, option (b) is the correct answer.
4. Ans. (a) Option (b) is incorrect as this a Union applied code, applicable everywhere, to all industries. Moreover, Kerala is not included in the lists of states where the threshold has been enhanced from 100 to 300 workers by state amendments. Hence, (a) is the correct answer as they ransacked without a cause and hence fulfil the conditions of the code. Option (a) is the correct answer.
5. Ans. (b) He had employed 100 workers only. The above passage states that Uttar Pradesh has been exempted through a state amendment for industries with less than 300 workers, hence Ranbir would not be liable in the above situation. Hence options (a), (c) and (d) are incorrect.