Key speakers, including writer Murzban Shroff, public health expert Dr. Amar Jesani, and workers’ union leader Ranga Satavse, condemned the controversial wet-lease model under which private contractors lease buses to BEST. According to the speakers, this system has resulted in severe declines in the quality and availability of buses, inadequate maintenance, and overexploitation of workers.

Ranga Satavse, a prominent union representative for BEST workers, emphasised that privatisation, underpinned by the wet-lease system, has exacerbated issues like the increasing number of bus breakdowns, a lack of replacement parts, and poor working conditions. As per a report of the Free Press Journal, he noted that the increasing reliance on private contractors has led to rising costs for BEST and decreased reliability for commuters. 

The advocacy group has been vocal about the negative impacts of privatisation, and at this gathering, they reiterated their calls for urgent reforms to restore public accountability and service quality. Their demands include subsidising the BEST service as part of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) budget, a significant increase in the fleet size to at least 6,000 buses, and a halt to the monetisation of essential land holdings like the BEST depots.

AMAB’s key demands and proposed reforms

The AMAB movement, which has been raising awareness on this issue for some time, laid out a detailed list of demands aimed at reversing the negative impacts of privatisation and revitalising the public transport system for the benefit of all Mumbaikars. These demands are both practical and long-term, designed to address systemic issues in the transport sector.

1. Subsidisation and full public ownership of the fleet: AMAB advocates for the full integration of BEST’s budget with the BMC budget to ensure stable, long-term funding for public transport. By subsiding the service directly through public funds, AMAB argues that BEST can become more sustainable and be freed from the financial pressures of privatisation. The group also stressed that the entire bus fleet should be publicly owned to avoid the problems caused by the exploitation of workers under private contractors.
2. Restoration of the public fleet: One of the key issues addressed at the conference was the drastic reduction in the number of public buses. AMAB demanded that the fleet be restored to its former strength of over 4,000 buses, stating that the current fleet of about 3,000 buses, which includes wet-lease vehicles, is inadequate to meet the needs of Mumbai’s growing population. With public buses disappearing, the movement insists that the city’s transport infrastructure must revert to a publicly owned model to ensure reliability, safety, and affordability for all.
3. Increase in bus numbers to serve the growing population: AMAB highlighted the growing gap between the number of buses and the city’s expanding population. Currently, the city has roughly one bus per 5,000 residents, compared to the ideal ratio of one bus per 2,000 people. The group called for an increase in the number of buses to meet the needs of commuters, particularly in densely populated suburbs where service is currently inadequate.
4. Resumption of discontinued routes: The group also demanded the resumption of several bus routes that were discontinued under the privatisation model. These routes, according to AMAB, are critical to restoring comprehensive coverage across the city, ensuring that no area is left underserved. Discontinuing these routes has made commuting increasingly difficult, especially for working-class Mumbaikars in the suburbs.
5. Introduction of bus priority lanes: AMAB emphasised the need to introduce dedicated bus priority lanes on all arterial routes in the city. This would help buses run more efficiently, reduce delays caused by traffic congestion, and encourage more people to switch from private vehicles to public transport.
6. Halting the monetisation of BEST depots: Another critical demand raised at the conference was the cessation of the monetisation and redevelopment of BEST depots, which are essential for parking buses. AMAB argued that the land should remain under public ownership and not be used for private profit through real estate development. These depots are vital for ensuring that buses can be parked, maintained, and serviced properly, and their sale or redevelopment would further weaken the transport system.

Worker exploitation and the impact of privatisation

The decline in service quality is not only due to financial mismanagement but also stems from the exploitation of the workers employed under the wet-lease model. During the conference, several speakers raised concerns about the adverse working conditions that BEST workers face. 

As per a report of FPJ a retired employee of BEST, who was part of the AMAB movement, highlighted the overwork and underpayment of workers under the privatisation system. He mentioned that many workers have reported irregular payment schedules and inadequate benefits, which have led to high levels of dissatisfaction and even health issues among the workforce. The lack of proper training and equipment also results in poorly maintained buses, which further worsens the commuter experience.

The FPJ provides that AMAB’s 2022 survey of 100 contractor workers revealed alarming trends in worker exploitation. Many reported working long hours with insufficient rest, while others had to endure hazardous working conditions without proper safety gear. The survey also showed that the quality of services provided to Mumbai’s suburbs is far below the standards of the city, with commuters in outer areas facing poor bus frequency and reliability.

Ranga Satavse, representing the workers’ union, also spoke at the conference and noted that the privatisation process had increased inequality in service delivery, with areas that are not profitable for contractors receiving the worst service. He also pointed out that the growing worker dissatisfaction was inevitable under a system that places profit before public welfare.

Political response and public mobilisation

While AMAB’s calls for reform are gaining traction, the political response to the crisis remains subdued, with little attention being given to the decline of public transport ahead of the upcoming state assembly elections. However, some political parties, like the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), have included promises related to public transport in their election manifestos. 

The MVA has committed to providing free travel for women on government buses, as well as financial assistance for women under the Mahalaxmi scheme. This promise aims to address some of the concerns around public transport affordability, but it remains to be seen whether these promises will address the deeper issues of privatisation and service quality highlighted by AMAB.

The group also mentioned the need for public support, urging citizens to join the movement and demand a reversal of the privatisation policy. The crisis, which culminated in the October 14, 2024, shutdown of 250 buses operated by private contractors, serves as a stark reminder of the fragile state of Mumbai’s public transport system under privatisation. AMAB maintains that restoring BEST to its public roots is crucial for the city’s long-term prosperity and the well-being of its residents.

In conclusion, the conference was a call to action for citizens, workers, and political leaders alike to recognise the essential role that public transport plays in the city’s infrastructure and to urgently prioritise reforms that will ensure the sustainability of Mumbai’s bus services.

(Detailed report on issues of fleet size and funding of BEST buses may be read here.)

Related:

Maharashtra: Free speech has remained on the line of fire of the current regime, democracy on trial as state goes for election

BEST strike over Diwali bonus shakes Mumbai’s Bus Service, reveals growing transit strain

Samsung workers end strike but the core issue of recognition of unions’ remains

The post Citizens and experts rally to save Mumbai’s BEST buses from privatisation pitfalls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This essay argues that moving beyond insurance and pension schemes is essential for holistically improving the lives of agricultural labourers. It is crucial to invest in strategies that empower this workforce through skill development, education, and the creation of diverse employment opportunities, enabling them to transition smoothly into non-agricultural sectors and improve their overall well-being.

Defining agricultural labourers

Agricultural labourers are individuals who work on farms or in agricultural activities for wages, rather than operating their own farms. They do not own the land they cultivate nor the tools they utilise. Agricultural labourers provide the manual labour required for various agricultural tasks. They play a critical role in ensuring food security and supporting the livelihoods of millions in rural areas. In India, they represent a substantial portion of the workforce. The 2020-21 Periodic Labour Force Survey reported that 46.5% of people in India are engaged in agricultural activities.

Agricultural labourers are essential to the agricultural sector because they perform tasks vital for food production. These tasks can include:

• Preparing land for cultivation
• Sowing, planting, and transplanting crops
• Maintaining crops through weeding and irrigation
• Harvesting and threshing crops
• Tending to livestock and poultry

While the ongoing shift towards farm mechanisation aims to enhance productivity, it also poses a challenge to the traditional employment patterns of agricultural labourers. This displacement necessitates exploring alternative employment avenues to ensure their continued well-being.

Farm mechanization, reduced labour demand, and potential risks

Farm mechanisation is causing a decline in the demand for manual labour in India by replacing human workers with machines for various tasks. This shift is driven by the need for greater efficiency and output in the agricultural sector. The increasing production of crops like grains, cereals, and oilseeds requires faster and more effective harvesting procedures.

Powered machines help meet this need, enabling farmers to reduce costs and increase yields. As per a 2022 report by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Food Processing, 47% of agricultural operations in India are now mechanized, highlighting the ongoing transition. Machines are employed in a wide array of agricultural activities, including seed-bed preparation (ploughing, harrowing), sowing and planting (seed drills), inter-culture operations (weeding, fertilizer application), harvesting and threshing (combine harvesters), and irrigation (tube wells, electric and diesel pumps).

The adoption of farm mechanisation offers several benefits, such as cost reduction due to lower labour expenses and faster task completion. Mechanisation also leads to significant savings in seeds and fertilizers, ranging from 15 to 20 percent, at a conservative estimate.[2] It enhances productivity through improved operational speed and precision in tasks like sowing and harvesting. Furthermore, it optimises resource utilization by ensuring the accurate application of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, reducing waste and environmental impact. Lastly, it allows for increased cropping intensity and higher yields by enabling farmers to work on larger areas efficiently.

However, this transition to mechanisation poses risks for agricultural labourers who depend on manual work. A study in the West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh found that a one-unit increase in input costs and machine time led to a decrease of 0.06 and 4.34 units in labour requirements, respectively, demonstrating the direct impact of mechanization on labour demand.[3] As machines take over tasks once done by humans, labourers face potential job displacement, unemployment, and lower wages due to an oversupply of labour in the market. Marginal and small farmers, who constitute a significant proportion of India’s agricultural workforce, may struggle to afford or operate expensive machinery, potentially widening the gap between them and larger, more mechanized farms. The displacement of labourers also necessitates finding alternative employment opportunities and providing skills training to facilitate a smooth transition to non-agricultural sectors.

This shift can lead to an unstable income for agricultural workers, creating financial uncertainty for rural families who depend on these earnings. Establishing alternative employment options beyond agriculture would provide these families with a much-needed safety net, helping them maintain a stable income even as the agricultural landscape changes.

Importance of skill development

To help agricultural workers transition to new job sectors, skill development is key. As traditional agricultural tasks are met with low demands, these workers need training in skills that fit other growing industries, such as manufacturing, construction, or services. Programmes that focus on building these skills would empower agricultural labourers to secure better-paying, sustainable jobs, giving them an opportunity to improve their financial outlook and move beyond agriculture-based income.

The need for steady income sources

A reliable income stream is crucial for the well-being of rural families. When families have a consistent income, they can invest in essentials like education and healthcare, breaking the cycle of poverty and building a brighter future. By fostering employment opportunities outside of agriculture, rural families can reduce their dependence on the land, bringing stability and resilience to rural communities as they adapt to modern agricultural practices.

Schemes-the abundance and the lack

The government has several schemes for agricultural labourers but a good amount of them revolve only around insurance and pension. Insurance is a risk mitigation instrument i.e. it exists to make sure that the person who is insured does not find themselves in worse situation than they are in currently. Pension too supports the current situation rather than helping the person to achieve a better standard of living.

The Indian government has enacted the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, to provide social security benefits to workers in the unorganized sector, including agricultural labourers. This act mandates the creation of welfare schemes for unorganized workers, addressing life and disability cover, health and maternity benefits, old age protection, and other benefits determined by the Central Government.

Several specific schemes fall under this act:

Aam Admi Bima Yojana (Department of Financial Services)

Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)

In addition, there are three other schemes by the Central Government that offer coverage to agricultural labourers:

• Atal Pension Yojana
• Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana-Life Insurance
• Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana-Accident Insurance

Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-dhan Yojana (PM-SYM), launched in 2019, is a pension scheme that provides a monthly pension of Rs. 3000/- to unorganized workers, including landless agricultural labourers, after they reach the age of 60.

Beyond these, other schemes might benefit agricultural labour, but they do not specifically address the loss of employment due to farm mechanisation.

In a reply to a question posed by an MP, which asked about details regarding the shift of people from agriculture to other activities, the government did not provide the details of such shift. Instead of a direct answer, the reply talked about unrelated things and concluded by saying that the Government of India has implemented various initiatives and policies to boost economic growth and employment in the country.
The reply listed initiatives aimed at boosting non-agricultural sectors, including the “Make in India” program, “Start-Up India” initiative, “Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana,” and skill development programs. However, it lacked specific details on how these programs incentivize a shift from agriculture.[4]

This reply also throws light on the fact that the government has been working with scarce data which could affect efficient and effective policy making.

The reason why agricultural labourers need extra protection is because they are deprived of all kinds of resources necessary to get a better life. They are restricted from accessing benefits urbanisation due to lack of capital or skill to move to the city. They are restricted from agriculture due to lack of land etc. Therefore, their lack of resources cannot be solved by placing basic safety nets that barely help them when something bad happens.

A holistic plan-based upliftment must be undertaken to ensure that they do not get left out as the process of farm mechanisation begins to pace up. Specific manufacturing hubs that prioritise employment of women, near villages, incentivising the employment of women along with providing standard health and education facilities can be effective. Only by creating conditions that ensure the improvement in living conditions of agricultural labourers, the goal of restricting unemployment and poverty in rural poor and agricultural labourers can be achieved.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] Pib.gov.in. (2024). Agrarian Land. [online] Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1601902 [Accessed 6 Nov. 2024].

‌[2] Guru, P., Borkar, N., Debnath, M., Chatterjee, D. and Panda, B. (n.d.). Rice mechanization in India: Key to enhance productivity and profitability. [online] Available at: https://krishi.icar.gov.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/31952/1/2.8.pdf.

[3] Gousiya SK and Suseela K, ‘IMPACT of FARM MECHANIZATION on INCOME and EMPLOYMENT and CONSTRAINTS in MECHANISATION of RICE CULTIVATION in WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT’ (2021) 49 The Journal of Research ANGRAU 107 <https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/TJRA/article/view/133453?articlesBySimilarityPage=4> accessed 6 November 2024.

[4] LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO.228, 2023 Available at: https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/1714/AS228.pdf?source=pqals

Related:

Listen to the lament of the landless-farm labourer!

Farmers and labourers resolve to oppose Centre’s laws targeting them

From farm labourer to erudite defence counsel to public prosecutor to High Court Judge BG Kolse Patil, today a mass leader speaks…

The post Beyond insurance: addressing the needs of India’s agricultural labour force appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a result, each of the 26,000 BEST employees will now receive a bonus of ₹29,000, providing much-needed relief and assurance to the staff. However, due to the ongoing election code of conduct, BEST officials will first seek formal permission from the Election Commission before transferring the bonus amounts into employees’ bank accounts. BEST Union leader Shashank Rao emphasised that this move was essential, and that the situation could have been handled proactively to avoid service disruptions.

Widespread operational disruptions across Mumbai amid protests

As per various media reports, the strike severely disrupted Mumbai’s public transportation as BEST services halted at the Magathane depot and saw reduced operations at several others. On Bhai Dooj, which was celebrated on November 3, commuters in the city’s western suburbs, particularly around Borivali, faced extended delays and service gaps, causing major inconvenience for the 33 lakh Mumbaikars who rely on BEST buses daily. Passengers, especially office-goers and tourists, were left stranded or experienced prolonged waits at bus stops.

While BEST employees gained the support of some commuters who sympathised with their demand for timely bonuses, others voiced concerns over the timing of the strike. The disruption also triggered debate over the BMC’s management of the BEST Undertaking, as the unrest coincided with upcoming state assembly elections, giving rise to political scrutiny over the handling of BEST’s finances and fleet management.

Ongoing fleet shortages exacerbate challenges for BEST

Beyond employee unrest, the BEST administration is grappling with a severe fleet crisis, with bus numbers falling to below 3,000. As per a report of Times of India, the existing fleet shortage was worsened by delays in bus deliveries from contractors, who were previously supposed to deliver new vehicles as part of fleet expansion plans. Additionally, as per Mid-day, around 280 mini-buses were pulled from operation in October due to disputes with contractors, further straining service capacity and leaving commuters with fewer options.

BEST General Manager Anil Diggikar, while speaking to the TOI, acknowledged the challenges and organised an urgent meeting to address the workforce demands and fleet gaps. Following the strike, Diggikar provided that he was able to secure BMC’s approval of ₹80 crore to cover the Diwali bonus, assuring employees of timely payouts. However, Diggikar warned contractors of penalties if the delivery of new buses is not expedited. He confirmed that BEST expects the arrival of 80 electric air-conditioned (AC) buses by month-end and around 160 more by year-end, to increase the fleet’s capacity and meet peak-hour demand in busy routes. BEST has also planned to introduce open-deck double-decker tourist buses along popular routes like Marine Drive and the Fort area to cater to high weekend demand.

Bombay High Court ruling favours contractor in wet lease dispute with BEST

Amid fleet shortages, BEST’s operational capacity took another hit following a legal ruling that forced it to relinquish control of 250 mini-buses owned by contractor Hansa City Bus Services. The contractor, which had been operating buses for BEST under a wet lease agreement, terminated its contract in early October over unpaid dues amounting to ₹90 crore. The dispute escalated when Hansa City demanded the return of 250 AC buses but was initially prevented by BEST’s security personnel. BEST argued that the buses were critical for daily services, while Hansa cited high maintenance costs, increased fuel expenses, and additional overheads as factors in their decision to end the contract.

On November 2, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Hansa City, allowing the company to reclaim the buses parked at BEST depots. The court also appointed an arbitrator to settle outstanding issues between the parties. The ruling further reduced BEST’s fleet by 9% and exacerbated service gaps across the city. Nonetheless, the court ordered BEST to issue a show-cause notice if they wished to blacklist the contractor, underscoring the need for due process.

Calls for public ownership and investments in Mumbai’s bus fleet

The challenges facing BEST have sparked public debate over the future of Mumbai’s iconic bus service. Although daily ridership remains high at 33 lakhs as per the TOI, the fleet is far from adequate to meet the demands of a city nearing 20 million residents. TOI report provide that experts recommend a fleet size of 10,000 buses, but with only about 1,000 BEST-owned buses and close to 2,000 leased buses, the service is struggling to keep up. Transport advocates argue that the reliance on leased buses has led to a decline in service quality, citing frequent breakdowns, battery issues in electric buses, and untrained contract drivers as ongoing concerns.

Public groups, including the Aamchi Mumbai, Aamchi BEST forum, have voiced their opposition to privatisation efforts, demanding a full fleet of BEST-owned buses. They argue that BEST should operate as a “public-owned enterprise” to ensure affordability, reliability, and efficiency for all citizens. Activists like Vidyadhar Date and the Mumbai Mobility Forum have called on the BMC to immediately allocate funds for the purchase of 3,000 additional buses, emphasising that such investments are critical to maintaining the socio-economic backbone of the city.

The TOI report further provides that commuter advocates also highlight the affordability BEST offers, with minimum fares starting at just ₹5 for a 5-kilometer ride. They point out that daily commuters collectively save over ₹3 crore by choosing BEST, underlining the need for continued government support to maintain and expand the service. BEST General Manager Diggikar echoed these concerns, stressing the urgency of expanding the fleet to reduce waiting times, particularly during peak hours. He assured that BEST was pursuing all possible measures to reduce commuter inconvenience, with an anticipated delivery of 80 new buses by the end of the month.

A turning point for Mumbai’s public transport system?

With growing public support for BEST employees’ rights and mounting frustrations among commuters, the current challenges highlight the critical role of public investment in urban transit. As union leaders, officials, and commuter advocates call for structural reforms, the need for a reliable, publicly-owned BEST fleet has never been clearer. By addressing the immediate issues of fleet expansion, employee satisfaction, and commuter convenience, BEST can restore confidence in its role as an essential public service in Mumbai. Activists and citizens alike hope that the administration will prioritise investment in the city’s “second lifeline,” ensuring that BEST can meet the evolving needs of this city.

Related:

Maharashtra: How Mumbai grabs a lion share of the agricultural credit in the state

CJP files complaint with Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath

Pre-Election Gimmickry, Maharashtra: Mahayuti govt compelled to appropriate INDIA alliance Constitution driven call?

Maharashtra: Six more complaints filed against hate offenders by CJP

The post BEST strike over Diwali bonus shakes Mumbai’s Bus Service, reveals growing transit strain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That was more than five years ago and PLFS has come to be widely relied on data on one of the most important socio-political aspects of a developing country like India—unemployment—especially in lieu of the decennial Census not being conducted. This article aims to give an overview of the some of the key findings of the recent PLFS survey and the implications for the country. Before that, a brief background into various concepts is necessary.

Brief background

Labour Force Participation Rate: Defined as number of persons/ person-days in the labour force per 1000 persons/person-days, it is indicative of people who are seeking to work/working in the total Working Age Population. Working Age Population usually means people from the ages of 15 to 65.

Worker Population Ratio: Percentage of employed persons in the overall population.

Unemployment Rate: Percentage of unemployed among the labour force.

Activity Status-Usual Status: Activity Status of a person-determined on the basis of the activities pursued by a person during the specified reference period in this case 365 Days; Determined on the basis of usual principal activity and usual subsidiary economic activity of a person—PS + SS.

Activity-Current Weekly Status: Activity Status determined on the basis of reference period of last seven days preceding the date of survey—CWS.

 Key Indicators of unemployment

Table 1 Key Indicators of Unemployment, PLFS 2023-24.
Source: PLFS Annual Reports-2021-22;2022-23;2023-24.

Significant gender disparities in LFPR and WPR

The data for 2023-24 reveals significant insights into India’s labour market, particularly highlighting the disparity between Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) and Worker Population Ratio (WPR). LFPR, which measures the proportion of people actively engaged in or seeking work, is notably high in both rural and urban areas for males, with rural male LFPR at 84.3% and urban male LFPR at 81.9%. However, female LFPR lags far behind, especially in urban areas where it stands at only 31.2%. This suggests that despite economic growth and urbanisation, social and structural barriers continue to restrict women’s access to the labour market, especially in cities where opportunities are concentrated.

However, despite the relatively high LFPR, the Worker Population Ratio (WPR)—which measures the proportion of the population that is actually employed—paints a different picture. WPR for all ages is significantly lower across the board, especially for females, with rural female WPR at just 34.8% and urban female WPR at a strikingly low 20.7%. The gap between LFPR and WPR indicates that a substantial portion of those who are seeking work are not able to find it, leading to a mismatch in labour demand and supply. This could point to structural unemployment, underemployment, or job market barriers, especially for women. The overall WPR of 45.6% in rural areas and 38.9% in urban areas further underscores that the economy is not generating enough jobs relative to the number of people willing to work.

This discrepancy is particularly concerning in a developing country like India, where rapid population growth and urban migration are placing increasing pressure on labor markets. Despite the high LFPR, especially among men, the inability to translate participation into actual employment, as indicated by the lower WPR, highlights deep inefficiencies in the job market. Women, both rural and urban, face additional challenges, and this could explain their lower participation and employment rates.

Education and unemployment

In rural India, the data shows that the labour force participation rate(LFPR) for persons of age 15 years or above of different level of education is highest for diploma/certificate course—83%— i.e., those who have a diploma/certificate course are interacting with the labour market at a higher rate than those at Postgraduate and higher level being at 78.1%.

In urban India too, this trend appears, albeit at a total of lesser percentage of people interacting with labour market. Only LFPR of the Diploma/Certificate Course finishers is 78%, followed by the LFPR of people who are post graduate and above being 67.3%.

The overall LFPR for holders of Diploma/Certificate—Urban and Rural—is 80.6% while it is 71% for postgraduate and above.

The story of Women-both in terms of Diploma Course and PG Course is grim.

The LFPR of Males overall for Diploma/Certificate Course is 89.3% while it is 89.4 % for Postgraduate and Above. On the contrary, the LFPR for Females who have done Diploma Courses is only 55.8%; it is 51.1% for women in Postgraduate and above.
Essentially, despite being equipped with similar education-at higher level or even technical-women are interacting way less with the labour market than men do.

Trends over the past three Years can be found here.

Table 2.0: Data of Employment Indicators for the years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Source: PLFS Annual Reports-2021-22;2022-23;2023-24.

The data over the past three years reveals a consistent increase in the Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) and Worker Population Ratio (WPR) for both rural and urban women across all age groups between 2021-2024, particularly for rural women. The LFPR for rural women in the 15 years and above category rose significantly from 36.6% in 2021-22 to 47.6% in 2023-24, while urban women saw a more modest rise from 23.8% to 28% during the same period. This suggests greater integration of women into the labour force, with rural areas witnessing a more pronounced shift, likely due to a combination of economic necessity and possibly greater access to employment opportunities outside traditional agriculture.

On the other hand, despite these gains, the unemployment rate for urban women remains higher compared to their rural counterparts. For instance, in the 15-29 years age group, the unemployment rate for urban women stood at 20.1% in 2023-24, whereas rural women had a lower unemployment rate of 8.2%. This disparity hints at structural challenges in urban areas, where higher female participation does not necessarily translate into employment, possibly due to skill mismatches or fewer suitable job opportunities. The rural-urban divide in both labor participation and unemployment highlights the differing socio-economic conditions that affect women’s integration into the workforce across regions.

Conclusion

Despite progress in education and qualifications, female labour force participation, especially in urban areas, remains significantly lower than that of men. This points to enduring social, structural, and economic barriers that hinder women’s full participation in the workforce.

At the same time, the overall Worker Population Ratio (WPR) and Unemployment Rate (UR) figures reveal a mismatch between the number of people seeking work and those actually employed. While labour force participation, particularly among men, has remained relatively high, the economy struggles to generate sufficient employment opportunities, as evidenced by lower WPRs and higher unemployment rates, particularly for young people and women.

While the PLFS data shows incremental improvements in certain areas, it underscores the need for targeted policies to bridge the gender gap in employment, address underemployment, and create more equitable labor market opportunities. Achieving sustainable economic development in India will require a comprehensive approach that fosters job creation, ensures gender inclusivity, and aligns educational outcomes with employment opportunities.

Related:

Union government data shows increasing employment, decreasing unemployment rate since 2018

CMIE Unemployment Data: HP & Punjab better than national average; Haryana has one of three persons jobless

Declining trend in unemployment rates in urban and rural areas: Ministry of Labour

The post Young persons & women among the most acutely unemployed: PLFS Annual Report, 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The shift in response to demands from workers

According to Justice Chandru, a former judge and a unionist before he became a judge, in an interview with The News Minute, labour relations in Tamil Nadu have significantly shifted over the past decades. He recalled how in 1968, under C.N. Annadurai, the DMK government remained neutral in labour disputes, instructing police not to interfere. However, after Annadurai’s death, the DMK became more involved by aligning with its own labour wing under M. Karunanidhi’s leadership. He added that later governments, including those of MGR and Jayalalithaa, adopted more repressive measures such as banning strikes and using police force against workers. Justice Chandru opined that an understanding between the government and multinational companies has led to lax enforcement of labour laws, citing an instance where a Korean company was promised no unions would be allowed in its factory. He criticised the current Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the Samsung strike, arguing that their approach mirrored the BJP’s, despite ideological opposition. Furthermore, he emphasised that collective bargaining, once a strong workers’ right, has been reduced to “collective begging,” with labour disputes often delayed in courts, leaving workers without timely justice.

From ‘registration but not recognition’ to ‘neither registration nor recognition’

Trade Unions are supposed to be registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the workers had alleged that there has been a deliberate delay in registering the union. Usually, the cases used to such that a registered trade union is not recognised by the management for bargaining process, but the Samsung case presents another hurdle for the unions.

One of the core demands of the workers in the Samsung factory strike was the formal recognition of the Samsung India Labour Welfare Union (SILWU), a request the company refused to fulfil. Union recognition is a critical issue that managements often use to suppress worker demands, as companies can deny un-recognised unions the authority to represent workers, weakening their ability to bargain collectively.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prohibits Unfair Labour Practices. Section 25T of the Act states that no employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or not, shall not commit unfair labour practices. Section 25U of the Act imposes a punishment for violation of Section 25T—up to 6 months imprisonment or with fine which may extend to Rs.1, 000 or both.   The Fifth Schedule of the Act lists of Unfair Labour practices and within this, refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognised trade unions is also present. Therefore, if companies recognise a union, they will have to bargain with it and failure to do so is punishable.

The complexities surrounding union recognition in India are deeply rooted in the country’s legal framework. While Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations or unions, there is no specific provision mandating formal recognition of trade unions by employers. Recognition is a key step that allows unions to engage in collective bargaining, enabling them to negotiate for workers’ interests effectively and maintain stable industrial relations.

However, a clear distinction exists between registration and recognition. The Trade Unions Act of 1926 outlines a process for the registration of trade unions, granting them legal status and certain protections. Despite this, registration does not automatically lead to recognition by employers. Recognition, unless mandated by specific state laws, is generally left to the discretion of employers, creating a fragmented system that allows management to influence and delay the process, further eroding the bargaining power of the unions.

Some states, like Maharashtra, have attempted to address this issue with laws such as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which governs union recognition and aims to protect workers from unfair labour practices. Other states, including West Bengal, Kerala, and Odisha, have established procedures for union recognition, which can involve secret ballots or membership verification. In some of these legislations, the applicant trade unions need to have not less than 30% of the membership of the establishment and apply for a recognition by the Industrial Court.

Various methods, such as the check-off system (where union fees are deducted from workers’ wages via authorisation from the worker) and secret ballots (as supported by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union vs. Food Corporation of India, 1995 AIR SCW 1288), are used to determine union representation. However, the absence of a uniform national law leaves recognition vulnerable to manipulation, allowing employers significant leverage in the process. The Code of Discipline, adopted in 1958, serves as a voluntary set of guidelines for maintaining industrial discipline. The Code includes criteria for union recognition, but it is not legally binding

This lack of clarity and consistency in the legal framework creates challenges for unions, leaving them unable to fully represent their members’ interests, thus weakening their influence and reducing workers’ ability to organise effectively.

Conclusion

In the Samsung workers’ case, the government allegedly delayed the registration of the Union in the first place under the Trade Union Act, 1926 thus attracting the ire of the protesting workers.

To conclude, the right to strike in India is not a fundamental right, nor is there a clear legal guarantee for the recognition of trade unions. Both remain largely at the discretion of employers, leaving room for management to suppress workers’ collective bargaining power. This lack of recognition can hinder workers from effectively voicing their concerns or negotiating better terms.

There is a pressing need for laws that establish clear guidelines for mandatory recognition of trade unions. Currently, while the Trade Union Act, 1926 provides for the registration of unions, it does not ensure their recognition by employers. Without a legal obligation to recognise unions, employers often have significant leeway to deny representation, as seen in cases like that of Samsung. A national framework in the form of Industrial Relations Code, 2020 has been proposed in which there were powers to the Union government to frame rules for Union Recognition but the Act has not been implemented yet.  The solution could also like bringing legislations similar to state-level acts like the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which could provide a more uniform approach across India, reducing the ability of employers to exploit the lack of recognition.

However, these issues must be understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), which, though not enforceable in court, provide a guiding framework for governance. Articles 39 and 43 of the DPSPs emphasize fair distribution of resources and securing living wages for workers, underscoring the need for mechanisms that support workers’ rights, including the right to strike.

The Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962 AIR 17), held that the right to form a union comes under the ambit of the right to form an association under Article 19 (1) (c). There have also been instances of judicial interpretation, such as in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 1166), where the right to protest was protected but the court refused to declare Right to Strike as a fundamental right. This suggests that strikes, as a form of collective demonstration, may find indirect support in constitutional protections for free speech and assembly but not a direct one.

Ultimately, without robust legal guarantees for union recognition, workers will continue to face barriers in advocating for their rights. Aligning labour laws with the principles laid out in the DPSPs would provide greater protection for workers and strengthen their ability to organize, ensuring that they can not only form unions but also have those unions recognised and respected by employers.

(The author is part of the organisation’s legal research team)

Related:

Victory for Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu: A hard-fought struggle pays off, brings key wins

TN: Samsung Workers Continue Strike, Demand Union Recognition

The post Samsung workers end strike but the core issue of recognition of unions’ remains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Tamil Nadu government, initially unwilling to respond to the growing unrest, eventually intensified efforts to mediate between the workers and the management. This culminated in a tentative settlement, ending the 37-day strike. Samsung committed to engaging with the workers’ demands and promised no punitive action against those who participated in the strike. For the workers, this was a significant step forward, even though full recognition of their union is yet to be achieved.

“We are really happy,” said a 34-year-old Samsung worker while speaking to Frontline, “though we would have been happier if the government had given us the registration number. But we are assured that we will win the case in court.”

The genesis of the strike: Union recognition and better conditions

The root cause of the strike was the workers’ demand for Samsung to recognise their union, Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU). This demand was central to their hopes of securing better wages and working hours. Multinational companies like Samsung often shy away from recognising independent unions, preferring to deal with internal unions that remain under the management’s control. According to labour rights activist Akriti Bhatia, many such companies in India sidestep labour laws, which allow workers the right to association and collective bargaining.

Samsung, like other multinational firms, has been reluctant to recognise unions backed by external political bodies like CPI(M)-affiliated Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), fearing that such associations could disrupt operations. A source within Samsung earlier stated that while the company supports unions, it does not engage with those backed by third-party organisations.

Notably, the protesting workers’ demands extended beyond union recognition. They sought higher wages, better working conditions, medical insurance, and improvements in workplace facilities. The factory, located in the industrial hub of Sriperumbudur near Chennai, employs nearly 2,000 workers and is one of two Samsung plants in India. The facility plays a critical role in Samsung’s operations, contributing around a third of the company’s $12 billion annual revenue in India through the production of home appliances as per a report of The Quint.

 The role of the state and political implications

The strike posed a significant challenge to Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government, which initially took a passive stance on the issue. As the strike entered its second month, concerns grew about the political and economic fallout. The strike’s timing was particularly sensitive, coinciding with Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s international tour aimed at attracting foreign investment to the state. The pro-business image of Tamil Nadu was at risk, especially since Samsung is a major foreign investor.

Despite its political alliance with CITU, the DMK government struggled to find the right approach. For much of the strike, key ministers failed to engage directly with the workers, and efforts to resolve the issue were handled through bureaucratic channels rather than direct political intervention. The state’s reliance on these channels, without a clear political strategy, only contributed to the deadlock.

It was only after sustained pressure that the government ramped up its efforts to broker a resolution. Chief Minister Stalin instructed senior ministers to intervene, and negotiations involving multiple ministries—including Labour Welfare, Industries, and Public Works—were held. These efforts eventually led to a breakthrough, though not without setbacks along the way.

Amidst the hard-fought struggle of Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu, one of the most disturbing aspects of the protest was the detention of several workers who participated in the strike. As the workers stood firm in their demands for better wages, union recognition, and improved working conditions, their rights to peacefully protest and voice their grievances were met with state repression. The detention of these workers not only highlights the broader challenges faced by labour movements in India but also underscores the precarious state of workers’ rights in the face of corporate and state interests.

The crackdown: Arrests and disbanding of protest camps

As the strike reached its second month, the tensions between the workers and the management escalated, with the Tamil Nadu government coming under increased pressure to resolve the issue. Instead of supporting the workers’ cause or facilitating meaningful dialogue, the state resorted to heavy-handed measures, including the arrest of workers and the dismantling of their protest camps.

On October 9, after the Tamil Nadu government prematurely announced that the strike had been resolved, a group of Samsung workers who were part of the protest refused to accept the terms of the settlement. These workers argued that the agreement had been signed by employees who were not part of the striking group, thus undermining the legitimacy of the resolution. In response, state authorities moved in to break up the protests, leading to the detention of several workers.

Police arrested more than a dozen workers, including prominent union leaders, as they attempted to stifle the ongoing protest. Law enforcement officials also forcibly removed the tents set up by workers outside the factory in Sriperumbudur. This aggressive approach to silencing the workers’ voices drew widespread condemnation from labour unions, political allies, and human rights organisations, all of whom decried the violation of the workers’ constitutional rights.

The detention of the workers was not merely an administrative action—it was a blatant trampling of their fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations and unions. By arresting workers who were exercising their right to peaceful protest, the state infringed upon these constitutional guarantees, aligning itself with corporate interests rather than protecting the rights of its citizens.

This crackdown on Samsung workers mirrored a troubling pattern in India, where labour rights and peaceful dissent are increasingly being met with state repression. Over the past few years, protests by workers, farmers, and activists have often been quelled through the use of arrests, intimidation, and, in some cases, outright violence. The situation involving Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu is yet another example of how the state can prioritise economic interests and corporate pressure over the rights and welfare of its citizens.

Akriti Bhatia, a labour rights activist, commented on the situation and told Frontline that “This is yet another case where the state machinery is used to suppress the demands of workers. Instead of addressing the genuine concerns of labourers and ensuring compliance with labour laws, the government is using force to dismantle legitimate movements.”

Solidarity in many forms was shown:

AIKS Extends Revolutionary Greetings to the Samsung Workers for their Historic Victory!

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) extends its revolutionary greetings to the struggling workers of Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) led Samsung India Workers’ Union (SIWU) on (1/n) pic.twitter.com/g5IR7kY65r

— AIKS (@KisanSabha) October 16, 2024

We condemn the detention of protesting Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu. pic.twitter.com/uUIS0l7l4l

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) September 16, 2024

The #CPIM, CPI and CPI(ML) Liberation held a solidarity protest in #Chennai supporting the workers of #Samsung who have been on strike demanding recognition of their union, wage revision and regulated working hours.@tncpim state secretary Comrade K. Balakrishnan, CPI state… pic.twitter.com/NrOh4lfI0U

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 5, 2024

Leaders of AIDWA extended support to the Samsung India Workers Union at the protest site pic.twitter.com/MNO9mtw3y6

— Greeshma Kuthar (@jeegujja) October 5, 2024

One also cannot forget the role of multinational corporations and complicity of the state in choking the voices of the people protesting for dignity and rights. The detention of Samsung workers also highlighted the influence multinational corporations wield over local governments. In their quest to maintain operations without disruptions, companies like Samsung exert immense pressure on state authorities to curb dissent and maintain a “pro-business” environment. This pressure often manifests in the form of government action against workers who dare to challenge these corporations. For Samsung, which plays a key role in Tamil Nadu’s industrial sector, a prolonged strike posed not just a financial threat but also a reputational risk. The state’s pro-business image was on the line, and the DMK government’s initial reluctance to intervene aggressively can be seen as an attempt to maintain its investor-friendly facade. However, as the strike dragged on, the government resorted to coercive measures, leading to the detention of the workers.

The actions of the state during this strike raised critical questions about the role of governments in protecting workers’ rights. In theory, the government should be a mediator between labour and capital, ensuring that workers are treated fairly and that laws are upheld. However, in practice, the government’s actions in Tamil Nadu revealed a deeper complicity with corporate interests, as it attempted to suppress the legitimate demands of the workers instead of addressing their grievances. 

International Labour Standards and the Need for Accountability

The detention of workers during the Samsung strike is not just a domestic issue—it also reflects poorly on India’s adherence to international labour standards. India is a signatory to several International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, including those that protect the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The state’s actions during the Samsung strike violated these international commitments, casting doubt on its commitment to upholding basic labour rights.

In recent years, India has positioned itself as a key player in the global manufacturing supply chain, with companies like Samsung, Apple, and Foxconn establishing major operations in the country. While these companies contribute significantly to India’s economy, they also bear responsibility for ensuring that their workers are treated fairly and that labour laws are followed. The crackdown on Samsung workers during this strike is a stark reminder that corporate social responsibility must extend beyond profit margins and production goals. 

A Call for Justice

The release of detained workers and the cessation of legal action against them was one of the key conditions in the eventual settlement between the workers and Samsung. However, the fact that these detentions occurred in the first place serves as a chilling reminder of the risks workers face when standing up to powerful corporations. For many of the Samsung workers, the fear of reprisal remains, even as they prepare to return to work.

Labour rights activists and political allies have called for greater accountability in the aftermath of the strike. They are demanding that the Tamil Nadu government ensure that no further punitive action is taken against the workers and that steps are taken to address the broader issue of labour rights violations in the state. Additionally, they are calling on multinational corporations like Samsung to adopt more transparent and accountable practices when dealing with labour disputes.

For the workers of Samsung’s Sriperumbudur plant, their struggle has not ended with the resolution of the strike. While they have achieved several key concessions, including improved working conditions and a commitment from the company to engage with their demands, the fight for union recognition continues. More importantly, the fight for dignity and respect in the workplace, free from state repression and corporate exploitation, is far from over.

Frontline shared the words of one worker who was detained during the strike, who had said “We only asked for what is fair. We didn’t expect to be treated like criminals for standing up for our rights.”

Big lesson from Samsung Strike: Present trend of inter state competition to promote casual workforce, low wages,high workload,strenuous overtime targets and non-recognition of unions will be resisted. Everything can be negotiated but right to unionisation is nonnegotiable. pic.twitter.com/BDKaxdCv4G

— Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) October 18, 2024

Resolution and the Road Ahead

By October 16, both sides reached a settlement. Samsung agreed to meet most of the workers’ key demands, except union recognition, which remains under judicial review. In return, the workers agreed to return to work on October 17 and cease all protest activities. Crucially, Samsung assured that no action would be taken against workers who had participated in the strike.

Historic Victory in Samsung Struggle@cituhq has congratulated the workers in a statement :

In the contemporary history of class struggles, the Samsung India Workers Struggle is the greatest direct class action against the Rule of Capital.
The greatest saga of 37-day-long… pic.twitter.com/kEajHleWjg

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) October 16, 2024

KITU salutes the Samsung India Workers Union (CITU) for their inspiring and courageous strike action which led to a historic victory pic.twitter.com/yAt6FNoQsu

— Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union (@kitu_hq) October 16, 2024

Samsung, in a statement, welcomed the decision to end the strike, saying, “We will not take action against workers who merely participated in the illegal strike. We are committed to working closely with our workers to make the Chennai factory a great place to work.”

The strike, one of the largest the South Korean technology giant has faced in recent years, also holds broader implications for India’s manufacturing landscape. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has been positioning India as a viable alternative to China for global manufacturing activities. The Samsung strike, along with other labour movements in the region, including a one-day strike by workers at an Apple supplier in Tamil Nadu, underscores the importance of addressing labour rights and working conditions as India seeks to attract more foreign investment.

Earlier this year, unionised workers in South Korea staged a massive strike over pay and benefits, which added further pressure on Samsung. Meanwhile, in India, workers at a Foxconn facility in Tamil Nadu, a major assembler of Apple iPhones, also went on strike, demanding union recognition and better working conditions. These incidents reflect the growing assertiveness of workers in the face of multinational corporations that seek to maximise productivity while minimising costs.

As the dust settles on the Samsung strike, the workers’ struggle stands as a testament to the power of collective action, even in the face of multinational corporations. While the road to full union recognition may still be long, the workers of Samsung’s Sriperumbudur plant have demonstrated their resolve and ability to bring about meaningful change.

In the end, the Samsung workers’ strike in Tamil Nadu marks a significant chapter in the ongoing struggle for labour rights in India’s rapidly expanding industrial landscape. While much work remains to be done, the victory at Samsung offers hope for workers in other sectors and sets a precedent for future labour movements across the country.

Related:

‘Abduction’ of labour activist Anirudh Rajan part of a ‘troubling trend’: CASR

Assam CM call to expel ‘Miya Muslims,’ leads to violence against Bengali speaking Muslim Labourers

Labour cess utilisation remains low, Kerala only state to fully use its labour cess funds

Journalist cannot cover the labour beat without questioning extreme inequality- P Sainath

Evolution of labour exploitation: from slavery to platform economies

The post Victory for Samsung workers in Tamil Nadu: A hard-fought struggle pays off, brings key wins appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Under this law people of any village can ask for employment according to simple procedures described in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), and employment must be provided to them within a fixed period.

The guarantee aspect is supposed to be ensured by an additional provision in the law that if employment is not provided within the stipulated period, then a compensatory payment will be made to all those workers who had demanded employment. However this was watered down by the authorities by shrewdly adding that such payment will be provided subject of availability of funds.

On the whole the compensatory aspect has been implemented only very rarely, and this is how the guarantee aspect of the pioneering legislation has been weakened.

Hence it was particularly courageous on the part of the women workers from poor households in a very remote village Dhok (located in the desert district of Barmer in Rajasthan) to stand up with determination for their right to get the compensatory payment.

As they had demanded work using the proper legal procedure but did not get employment, they showed a lot of determination in raising the demand for compensation. When they did not get the payment, helped by a ‘mahila sangathan’ ( women’s rights organization) activist Anita Soni  they formed a group and came to the block office to meet the concerned officials.

The officials stated that they will consider their demand sympathetically. The women asserted with firmness that if their demand is accepted by officials here they will be thankful to them, but if the demand is not accepted then they are prepared to go right up to the state capital city of Jaipur to ensure that the demand for compensatory payment is accepted.

What has been seen recently in Barmer is a reflection of much wider problems in the implementation of NREGA. The budgetary allocation for NREGA is much less than the real need to fulfil the guarantee part of the law. Further its implementation is marred by widespread corruption. Systems of transparency and social audits which could have helped to reduce corruption have not been implemented properly.

On the other hand arbitrary actions brought the much needed law to a standstill in the state of W. Bengal for several months. In many states the NREGA wage rate is lower than the agricultural wage rate, and needs to be increased significantly. Procedures like ABPS and NNMS introduced as reforms have complicated the scheme and made it difficult for several workers to access this.

Several activists who have been trying to improve the working of this scheme at the grassroots assembled at a national convention and raised several of these demands. Such efforts are increasing in the context of several states like Jharkhand, W. Bengal and Rajasthan and the government should take overdue steps at the national level to ensure that the NREGA is able to live up to its rich potential and the expectations of people.

Apart from helping the weaker sections a lot, NREGA can also make an important contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

*Honorary convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. Books: “Man over Machine”, “Protecting Earth for Children”, “India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food”  

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Authorities’ shrewd caveat? NREGA payment ‘subject to funds availability’: Barmer women protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating, “Hungry cannot wait”. The bench has also directed states to file an affidavit detailing the identification of eligible persons who have yet to receive ration cards.

The bench in its order directed that “all such persons who are eligible (entitled for Ration Cards/ food grains as per the NFSA) and have been identified as such by the respective States/Union Territories, must be issued Ration Cards before 19.11.2024. They shall also be provided with the food grains forthwith.”

However, the bench restrained itself from issuing contempt notices and granted last chance to the Central and State Governments to comply with its direction issued in this regard and the previous order of the court.

Background and importance of the case

In year 2020, when nation-wide lockdown was imposed due to Covid-19 on March 25, 2020, the Supreme Court of India took suo-moto cognizance on May 26, 2020 over the problems and miseries of Migrant Labours who were stranded in different part of the country. In which the three-judge bench, consisting Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R expressed their concern with the lack of food and water provided by the administration while they are stranded or traveling along highways. While taking cognizance over the crisis of migrant labourers during the situation of lockdown, the bench directed the Centre and State Governments to provide adequate arrangements, immediately food and shelters free of costs to the migrant workers affected and issued notice to the Union and all the States to submit their response.

Later, the suo moto proceedings before the Supreme Court has been expanded to provide Ration Cards to migrant and unorganised labourers, who are registered in the e-Sharm portal of the Government of India but do not have ration cards and to those not covered under the NFSA on grounds that the right to food is protected under Article 21.

On June 29, 2021, the division bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah while disposing the suo moto petition “ In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers”, underscored that the Right to Life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and gives right to every human being to live a life of dignity with access to at-least the bare necessities of life and to provide food security to impoverished persons is the bounden duty of all States and Governments.

The concern regarding no-supply of dry ration to large section of migrant workers, who are not covered under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and who do not possess a ration card, raised by the intervenor, Advocate Prashant Bhushan before the Court. Following this, the bench through its judgement dated June 29, 2021 directed the Centre and States government to provide dry ration to those who have been identified as beneficiary under National Food Security Act, 2013 as per the Centre and States’ Schemes. The bench also stated that in event, a migrant labour is covered under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and had been issued a ration card under the Act, he is entitled to access the dry ration wherever he is, at his work place also, in accordance with scheme of the Central Government namely “One Nation One Ration Card”.

The bench issued the following eight directions to the Centre and States governments: –

1. Direction to the Central Government to develop the portal in consultation with National Information Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labours/migrant workers and the process of registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers is completed at the earliest, but not later than 31.12.2021.
2. Directed the Central Government, Department of Food and Public Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution) to allocate and distribute food grains as per demand of additional food-grains from the States for disbursement of dry food grains to migrant labourers.
3. Directed the States to bring in place an appropriate scheme for distribution of dry ration to migrant labourers for which it shall be open for States to ask for allocation of additional food grains from the Central Government, which, as directed above, shall provide the additional food grains to the State.
4. The State who have not yet implemented “One Nation One Ration Card” Scheme are directed to implement the same before 31.07.2021.
5. The Central Government may undertake exercise under Section 9 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to re-determine the total number of persons to be covered under the Rural and Urban areas of the State.
6. All the States/Union Territories to register all establishments and license all contractors under the Act, 1979 and ensure that statutory duty imposed on the contractors to give particulars of migrant workers is fully complied with.
7. The State/Union Territories are directed to run community kitchens at prominent places where large number of migrant labourers are found for feeding those migrant labourers who does not have sufficient means to procure two meals a day. The running of the community kitchen should be continued at-least till pandemic (Covid-19) continues. (Para 80 of the Supreme Court judgement dated June 29, 2021)

The judgement of Supreme Court dated June 29, 2021 may be read here

Subsequent Orders by the Supreme Court

On April 18, 2022, the division bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna directed the Union government to file a compliance report on the directions passed on June 29, 2021. Subsequently, the same bench on July 21, 2022 asked the Union to come out with a scheme/policy to ensure that the benefits under the NFSA are not restricted as per the 2011 census as the right to food is a fundamental right and restricting anyone would cause injustice. The bench observed that NFSA scope requires to be re-determined and asked the Central Government to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation

In January 2023, the same bench revisited the matter and while hearing the Miscellaneous Application No. 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020 filed by activists Harsh Mander, Anjali Bharadwaj and Jagdeep Chhokar alleging non-compliance by Union and certain States with the Court’s directions issued in 2021, to provide dry ration, open community kitchens for migrant workers stranded in NCR, the bench directed the Union and State governments to inform whether the 28.60 crores migrants/unorganised workers registered on the E-Shram portal are having the ration cards? And whether all of them are given the benefit of food under the NFSA?

Subsequently, On April 20, 2023, the division bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the basis of the information provided by the Union, observed that 28.60 crores migrants/unorganized workers are registered on the e-Shram portal which is a commendable job. However, out of 28.60 registrants on e-Shram 20.63 crores are registered on ration card data. Meaning thereby, the rest registrants on e-Shram are still without ration cards. Without the ration card a migrant/unorganized labourer or his family members may be deprived of the benefit of the schemes and may be the benefit under the National Food Security Act. The bench directed state governments to grant ration cards to migrant or unorganized workers who do not have them but are registered on the centre’s e-Shram portal, within three months. This portal is primarily made for enrolment, registration, collection, and identification of the required data of all unorganized workers.

SC directed to issue ration cards to 8 crore migrant workers in March, 2024

On March 19, 2024, the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed the State Governments and Union Territories to grant ration cards to 8 crore workers within two months to the unorganised sector who, despite being registered under the centre’s e-Shram portal and do not have these ration cards. The bench added that at the e-KYC of all 8 crore ration cardholders that are required to be updated must not come in the way of the issuance of ration cards.

Subsequently, on September 2, 2024, the Supreme Court’s division bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, directed the Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati to file an affidavit with respect to the steps taken so far and to comply with the directions of the court in the main judgement passed on June 29, 2021 and the subsequent orders passed by the court. The bench further directed that this exercise shall be done within a period of three weeks.

Patience may be a virtue, but ours is nearing its end: SC

The Supreme Court through its order dated October 10, 2024 has run out of patience with States that have failed to provide ration cards to migrant workers despite identification of number of beneficiaries. The bench expressed that “Patience may be a virtue – but ours is nearing its end”

In a stern warning, the court has given them a final deadline of November 19, 2024, to issue the Ration cards.  The bench directed that “for the States where in spite of identification, Ration Cards have not been issued on or before 19.11.2024, the concerned Secretary/IES (Food and Civil Supplies) shall remain present in person before this Court on the next date of hearing, to explain as to why Ration Cards have not been issued despite the identification, and in spite of repeated orders in this regard.”

“Why Ration Cards have not been issued despite the identification, and in spite of repeated orders in this regard?”

The bench further directed that if States fail to comply, the concerned secretaries of Food and Civil Supplies will have to appear in person before the court to explain the delay on the next hearing.

The matter is listed on 19.11.2024 for next hearing

The order of the Supreme Court dated 04.10.2024 may be read here

However, the Supreme Court’s suo moto proceedings, initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide rations to migrant workers, have now been expanded to cover migrant and unorganized labourers registered on the Government of India’s e-Shram portal who lack ration cards. This move also aims to benefit those not protected under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), based on the principle that the right to food is safeguarded by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Now the issue revolves around the National Food Security Act (NFSA), which restricts the number of persons eligible for ration cards. However, the court has made it clear that the right to food is a fundamental right and should not be restricted.

The court’s directive emphasizes that hungry individuals cannot wait, and it’s imperative to ensure food security for all, regardless of their eligibility under the NFSA. While underscoring the importance of the issue and the objective embedded under the National Food Security Act, the Supreme Court has ordered states to verify and provide ration cards to eligible migrant workers and unskilled labourers registered on the e-Shram portal. The Supreme Court’s suo moto action on issuing ration cards to migrant workers represents a significant step in safeguarding the right to food, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. By addressing the plight of those registered on the e-Shram portal but lacking access to essential resources, the Court underscores the government’s responsibility to protect vulnerable populations through judicial power.

Related:

Food, Housing, Health- limitations of post Covid-19 Migrant workers’ related policies

Fake News Regarding Situation of Migrant Workers in Tamil Nadu Being Made Viral

3 migrant workers burned alive in Meghalaya, CM Conrad Sangma condemns the incident

The post “Hungry Cannot Wait”: SC sets final deadline for Ration Cards to Migrant Workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A study by Fairwork India, which scored 11 top aggregators on a scale of 10 on fair wages, fair contracts, fair working conditions, fair representation, found most of them “not committed” to ensuring a living wage to their workers (who some of them refer to as partners), and none scoring beyond 6.

The platforms studied were Amazon Flex, Bigbasket, BluSmart, Flipkart, Ola, Porter, Swiggy, Uber, Urban Company, Zepto and Zomato.

The report found that only Bigbasket and Urban Company have a minimum wage policy that guarantees hourly local minimum wage after factoring in work-related costs.

What’s more, none of these platforms were willing to recognise the workers’ right to collectively bargain or unionise, which is a “vital dimension of fairness at work”.

The report said it found it “disconcerting that despite the rise in platform worker collectivisation across the country over the past six years, there was insufficient evidence from any platform to show a willingness to recognise a collective body of workers.”

The report, Fairwork India Ratings 2024: Labour Standards in the Platform Economy, was written by researchers from the Centre for IT and Public Policy, International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIIT-B), and the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

The report evaluated the conditions of work across 11 platforms in India at location-based services in sectors, such as domestic and personal care, logistics, food delivery, and transportation.

“Each company was awarded a score out of 10 according to the Fairwork Principles: fair pay, fair conditions, fair contracts, fair management and fair representation. Each score was determined based on a combination of desk research, worker interviews conducted in Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram, and-when possible-evidence provided by the platforms,” said the report.

“This year witnessed gig workers’ welfare increasingly gain attention in political manifestos and legislative initiatives. But with the implementation of these efforts remaining uncertain, and platforms redefining gig work, research and advocacy to improve the conditions of gig workers are ever more relevant,” said Professors Balaji Parthasarathy and Janaki Srinivasan, the principal investigators of the team, in a statement.

Among the key findings on ‘fair pay’, the report found that only Bigbasket and Urban Company provided evidence of a “minimum wage” policy.

“No platform was able to evidence that all of their workers earn the local living wage after costs, so none were awarded the second point for Fair Pay,” said the report.

On ‘fair working conditions’, the study found that Amazon Flex, Bigbasket, BluSmart, Swiggy, Urban Company, Zepto and Zomato were able to prove that they provide adequate safety equipment and periodic safety training to workers on their platforms.

Amid a job that is prone to road mishaps, “only Bigbasket, Swiggy, Urban Company, Zepto and Zomato evidenced that their companies provide workers with accident insurance coverage at no additional cost, monetary compensation for income loss in cases they are unable to work for medical reasons other than accidents, and ensuring a worker’s standing is not negatively affected when they return after a break taken with prior notice to the platform.”

As for “fair” work contracts, six out the 11 —  Bigbasket,
BluSmart, Swiggy, Urban Company, Zepto, and Zomato — provided evidence that they ensure “the accessibility and comprehensibility of their contracts, and have protocols for the protection and management of worker data.”

“Bigbasket, BluSmart, Swiggy, Zepto, and Zomato, also evidenced the adoption of a change notification clause in their contracts, reducing asymmetries in liability (such as by a provision to compensate workers for losses due to app malfunctions and outages), the adoption of a Code of Conduct for their subcontractors, and making the variables influencing pricing transparent where dynamic pricing is used,” the report said.

As regards ‘fair management”, Amazon Flex, Bigbasket, BluSmart, Flipkart, Swiggy, Urban Company and Zomato were awarded the “first point” for evidencing due process in decisions affecting workers and channels for workers to appeal disciplinary actions.

“There was sufficient evidence from BluSmart, Swiggy, Urban Company and Zomato of regular external audits to check for biases in their work allocation systems, in addition to policies against discrimination,” the report said.

When it comes to the right to collectively bargain or unionise, a “vital dimension of fairness at work”, the report found it “disconcerting that despite the rise in platform worker
collectivisation across the country over the past six years, there was insufficient evidence from any platform to show a willingness to recognise a collective body of workers.”

Fairwork is an international research project that studies the working conditions of platform workers in more than 30 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. The work is coordinated by Oxford Internet Institute and the Social Science Research Centre Berlin.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Only 2 Out of 11 Ecommerce Platforms Have Minimum Wage Policy for Gig Workers, Finds Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Only one state has an act for gig workers—Rajasthan—as of now, and if this draft becomes law, Karnataka would be the second state to enact a law for gig workers’ welfare. Notably, the Indian National Congress (INC) was the ruling party in Rajasthan, as it is now in Karnataka when the act was passed in the legislative assembly. Telangana, another state in which a gig worker draft law has been on the cards, is also a Congress-ruled state. However, Telangana’s law is not publicly accessible yet, and information on it was reported by sections of the media.

A few common threads

Generally, all state governments, as of now, seem to be following a set structure in terms of the welfare of gig workers.

One, in the definitions, they define:  

i) Aggregators to include major players like Swiggy, Zomato, etc., and smaller players like, say, Shoffer—a luxury electric car ride-hailing service based out of Bangalore.  

ii) Gig workers to include the delivery or ride partners or other such people registered on these platforms for work.

Two, they constitute a board to oversee the welfare of workers and ensure the implementation of the act.

Three, they establish a welfare fund to which the aggregators will be made to pay a certain amount per transaction per worker or some other mechanism.

Four, they outline the rights of the workers and the responsibilities of the aggregators, along with stating the penalties for violations.

While all these elements are present in the Karnataka Gig Worker law draft, it is important to understand the changing contours of employment relations in the gig economy year by year, along with the growing trend of gig work, when drafting the provisions of the law. For example, food delivery workers wear uniforms of the brand they are working with, as mandated, thus providing free marketing to the brand as they ride through the city. This is not factored into the pay given to them, and in fact, the uniforms are supposed to be bought from the brand by the workers themselves. These types of disguised employment conditions are not considered by the government while it defines the relationship between aggregators and workers.

In this context, this article will discuss the Karnataka Gig Worker law, its similarities and differences with the Rajasthan Gig Workers law, and the potential for improvement in the legislation on Gig Worker Welfare.

Draft Karnataka-based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2024

The draft bill defines an aggregator as a digital intermediary for a buyer of goods or user of services to connect with the seller or the service provider, and includes any entity that coordinates with one or more aggregators to provide the services. Essentially, a food delivery app like Swiggy, or an app that facilitates the hiring of electricians or beauticians like Urban Company, comes under the definition.

Section 2(e) of the Act defines gig workers as a person who performs work or participates in a work arrangement that results in payment based on terms and conditions laid down in such a contract. This includes all piece-rate work, and whose work is sourced through a platform, in the services listed in Schedule-I.

The Schedule includes the following services:

1.   Ride Sharing Services  
2.   Food and Grocery Delivery Services  
3.   Logistics Services  
4.   E-Marketplace for wholesale/retail sale of goods and/or services—B2B/B2C  
5.   Professional Service Providers  
6.   Healthcare  
7.   Travel and Hospitality  
8.   Content and Media Services

The draft bill has provisions for the rights of the gig worker in Section 6, granting them the right to register with the Gig Workers Welfare Board—established under Section 3—and the right to access general and specific social security schemes, as well as the right to access a grievance redressal mechanism (Section 7). This Grievance Redressal Mechanism involves either a complaint to the state government-appointed officer or a petition through a web portal whose link should be provided on the aggregator’s website.

The draft also outlines several responsibilities for aggregators:

1. Aggregators must provide a database of workers to the board and update it (Section 10).  
2. Aggregators must register themselves (Section 11).  

3. Aggregators must ensure that the contract is fair, easily understandable in a language comprehensible to the worker and listed in the 8th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Any change in the contract should occur with prior notice, and termination of the contract by the worker on account of the change should not affect the entitlements they were supposed to receive. 

4. Aggregators must communicate to the gig worker the parameters of allocation, distribution, assessment, and grounds for denial of work, as well as the parameters of the rating system and categorization of the workers on the quality of service, log-in time, etc. if such categorization is done by the employer (Section 14).

5. Aggregators cannot terminate the gig worker without prior notice of 14 days, and the contract must have an exhaustive list of grounds for termination or deactivation from the platform (Section 15).

6. Aggregators must pay workers weekly without delay (Section 16).

7. Aggregators must ensure reasonably safe and healthy working conditions, as practicable as possible (Section 17).  

8. Aggregators must ensure that a grievance link is available on their website and constitute an internal dispute resolution committee if they have more than 50 workers. These disputes include failure to adhere to the responsibilities mentioned above (Section 24). 

9. Aggregators must appoint a human point of contact for queries, with workers having the option to communicate in Kannada, English, or any 8th Schedule language known to them.

The draft also proposes the establishment of a welfare fund, to be funded by the aggregators at a percentage of the pay of platform-based gig workers per transaction or based on annual state-specific turnover, as may be notified by the government. For this purpose, the draft proposes a Central Transaction Information Management System where all transactions are mapped and monitored by the Board to ensure that payments made to workers and deducted fees are recorded and accounted for. Penalties range from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1, 00,000 and are compoundable unless the offense has been committed on more than three occasions.

It was also reported in the media that the government and aggregators agreed on levying a cess per transaction rather than based on state-specific turnover.

Similarities and differences with the Rajasthan Act

Both laws establish a board, give similar powers to the gig worker welfare board, and establish Central Monitoring Systems. In essence, both laws grant the same rights to workers, impose the same responsibilities on aggregators, and establish welfare funds.

However, the difference lies in the details of these broad structures. For example, the Rajasthan Act explicitly recognises the right of workers to participate in all decisions taken for their welfare through representation on the board. In constituting the board, the Rajasthan Act mandates that one-third of the members shall be women. The Karnataka draft misses these provisions and does not have as many members on the board. The Rajasthan law includes 12 board members, including the in-charge minister, while the Karnataka draft includes 10 members, with five being ex-officio members from various departments.

The Karnataka Act also emphasises transparency and the need for communication in languages understandable by the worker. By making it mandatory for the aggregator to provide details of the rating system or categorization of gig workers based on the quality of service rendered, log-in time, or other criteria, the draft attempts to lift the veil under which aggregators have operated until now.

Other key differences can be found in the welfare fee and penalty sections. The draft Karnataka law chooses an either-or approach, where the welfare fee could either be a percentage of each transaction or a percentage of the state-specific annual turnover. The Rajasthan Act does not mention turnover. In terms of penalties, Rajasthan’s law imposes penalties ranging from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 50 lakh. The Rajasthan Act also has provisions for interest payable on delayed payment of the welfare fee.

Potential for development

There is much room for development in the Karnataka draft law. While the fundamental question of defining the relationship between the gig worker and aggregator has not been answered, the draft leaves many concerns in the areas it chooses to operate in.

For example, it does not consider women in the gig workforce, nor does it enact specific provisions to protect their interests, such as maternity-specific provisions where women do not have to lose their categorization within the platform if they take a maternity break.

The bill has already been reportedly opposed by various companies due to concerns about compliance, with claims that it will hurt the ease of doing business in the state. While these concerns are expected, the sheer volume of compliance measures businesses must adhere to under the act raises doubts about its effective implementation. Meanwhile, Kerala’s Minister for Labour, V. Sivankutty, stated in August that the government intend to introduce the Kerala State Platform-Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Bill, 2024 in the assembly session this October.

In this paradigm, where the government seems to have decided not to accord the status of a worker to the gig worker and the status of an employee to the aggregator, the least it could have done is to provide for the increased bargaining power of the worker. This could have been achieved through the official recognition of unions in the gig economy, allowing bargaining to be done with unions or federations of such unions.

Conclusion

Despite the improvements in the Karnataka draft law, the fundamental question and demand remain unheeded. With the control aggregators usually exert on gig workers, the demand has been that gig workers be recognized as employees. With the BJP in Rajasthan not giving importance to the previously enacted gig worker law, and Congress governments consistently defining the relationship between gig workers and aggregators as independent individuals rather than employees, the future possibilities look narrower. 

Such a law should not be a choice between no protection at all and meagre protection for gig workers.

(The writer is a researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rajasthan’s Gig Worker Law, a step towards industrial democracy

Karnataka Budget 2023-24: CM announces Rs. 4 lakh life & accident insurance policy for gig workers

Report Highlights Poor Working Conditions for Gig Workers; Uber, Ola, Amazon Score Zero

Report Highlights Poor Working Conditions for Gig Workers; Uber, Ola, Amazon Score Zero

India’s Gig Workers: Overworked And Underpaid

The post Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.