Consider the following statements: As per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment Rules, 2018 I. If rules for fixed-term employment are implemented, it becomes to lay off workers II. No notice of termination of employment shall be necessary in the case of temporary workman Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Both statements hold, so the answer is C. The question is a little garbled in translation, so read statement I as saying that fixed-term employment makes it easier to lay off or release workers.

• Statement I (correct): The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018 added a fixed-term employment category to the Model Standing Orders. A worker engaged on a fixed-term contract can be released when the term ends, without the usual retrenchment process. This is why critics saw it as widening the employer's flexibility to exit workers.
• Statement II (correct): The model standing orders dispense with the notice requirement for certain temporary workmen, who can be terminated with short or no notice under the schedule. Permanent workmen, by contrast, need a notice period. Check the exact clause against the 2018 text before you rely on the wording.

The core concept is the distinction between permanent, temporary and fixed-term workers under standing orders. It links to the labour reforms debate and the shift towards flexible employment, which is a standard Mains theme on labour market flexibility versus worker security. Note that these standing orders were later subsumed under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which is now in force.

Trap: Aspirants tend to assume that any termination needs a notice. The 2018 amendments carve out exceptions for fixed-term and temporary workers, and that is exactly what this statement tests.