The Government presents the Codes as a modernisation that eases compliance, simplifies regulatory processes and boosts investment. From an industry perspective, consolidation reduces administrative burden and litigation risk, enhancing flexibility. However, labour unions and many policy analysts contend that these reforms prioritise employer interests, weaken worker protections, and ignore the realities of India’s heavily informal workforce. This paper critically examines the Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, Code on Social Security, and Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, analysing their likely impact on workers, employers, unions, and labour rights. All the codes have been embedded at the end of this analysis for easy reference.

Understanding the Four Labour Codes

• The Code on Wages, 2019

The Code on Wages replaces four earlier laws — Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 — into a unified wage framework. At first glance, this rationalisation is welcome: it removes the peculiar fragmentation wherein only certain “scheduled employments” were entitled to minimum wage protection, leaving vast sectors uncovered.

Its most noted provision is the establishment of a National Floor Wage, below which no state can fix minimum wages. In theory, this should reduce inter-state disparities. However, the Code does not mandate that states must revise their minimum wages upward if their current rates slightly exceed the national floor. Many states already have minimum wages far higher than earlier floor-level recommendations; thus, unless the national floor is set ambitiously, something economists have long urged, it will have little meaning.

The Code also introduces a uniform definition of “wages”, attempting to address the inconsistencies across earlier laws. Critically, this definition includes basic pay and dearness allowance but excludes a list of allowances. If exclusions exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess counts back into wages. While this aims to prevent employers from artificially restructuring wages to avoid statutory contributions, it remains complex in practice and will likely generate future litigation.

Moreover, enforcement has been significantly weakened. Earlier, workers could approach labour courts directly for wage-related grievances. The new system shifts much of the enforcement to inspectors-cum-facilitators and administrative mechanisms, reducing avenues for judicial redress. In a country where workers face stigma, fear, and lack of access to representation, administrative barriers often function as substantive barriers.

• Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Industrial Relations (IR) Code arguably represents the most transformative and contentious reform. It combines the Trade Unions Act 1926, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and Standing Orders Act 1946, governing everything from unionisation and dispute resolution to layoffs and closures.

The most controversial shift is the increase in the threshold for layoffs and closures from 100 to 300 workers. Units employing fewer than 300 workers no longer need prior government permission to terminate or retrench employees. This is not a minor change; it effectively removes a layer of job security for workers in medium-sized establishments, a sector which accounts for a large share of India’s organised workforce.

Proponents argue that rigid labour laws have suppressed the growth of labour-intensive industries, forcing firms to remain small to avoid crossing the regulatory threshold. They insist that increased flexibility will encourage larger hiring. But India’s own experience, and that of countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam, suggests that labour protections alone do not determine employment growth; infrastructure, productivity, skill development, and stable markets play a far more decisive role.

The IR Code also tightens procedures around strikes. The new rules require workers to provide extended notice in all industrial establishments, and prohibit strikes during conciliation proceedings and arbitration. Taken together, this significantly curtails the traditional bargaining power of unions. With union density already low in the private sector, critics argue that the Code further shifts the power imbalance in favour of employers.

The introduction of fixed-term employment — contracts with a defined duration but parity in benefits — adds another layer of flexibility. While it technically ensures equal benefits, the ability to not renew a contract provides employers a way to bypass protections against arbitrary dismissals. Without strong union presence or dispute-resolution mechanisms, many workers may experience heightened precarity.

• Code on Social Security, 2020

The Social Security Code replaces nine statutes, such as the Employees’ State Insurance Act, Provident Funds Act, Maternity Benefit Act and the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, into one framework intended to extend welfare benefits across India’s vast workforce — including organised, unorganised, gig and platform workers.

The Code on Social Security puts in place suitable welfare arrangements for unorganised workers, like health and maternity benefits, education, etc. [Section 109(1)] as well as provident fund, gratuity, housing, old-age homes, funeral assistance, etc [Section 109 (2)]. However, it makes the registration of such unorganised workers, including gig workers, compulsory. Such registration is also subject to submission of the Aadhaar details of the workers under Section 113 (2)(1)-

shall make an application for registration in such form along with such documents including Aadhaar number as may be prescribed by the Central Government and such worker shall be assigned a distinguishable number to his application

Yet, recognition alone does not guarantee actual coverage. Registration under the Code requires Aadhaar-based identification, which has been criticised for excluding those without stable documentation, particularly migrant workers and those on the margins of the digital ecosystem. Several constitutional arguments have been raised against making Aadhaar a mandatory precondition for accessing statutory benefits, but the Code nevertheless embeds this requirement.

Moreover, the Code leaves most of the substantive welfare provisions to be framed through future schemes. This skeletal drafting has drawn criticism for shifting the real decision-making power from Parliament to the executive. Funding responsibilities between states and the Centre are vaguely articulated, leaving scope for jurisdictional friction and uneven implementation. Another issue arises for the gig workers. While the gig workers are a part of a larger subset of unorganised workers, the SSC 2020 lays down separate provisions for the gig workers, making the provisions applying to such workers confusing. Gig workers, in particular, are recognised as a category but remain non-employees in the eyes of the law.

• Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

The OSH Code merges 13 different laws on factories, mines, construction, contract labour, inter-state migrant workers and more, aiming for uniform workplace safety standards. It increases formalisation by allowing a single registration for establishments working across sectors, and in principle extends certain safety and welfare protections to gig/platform workers as well. However, as with the Social Security Code, most operational details are delegated to subordinate rule-making.

One notable change is the relaxation of restrictions on women working at night. While framed as a progressive step toward gender equality, the Code requires that states ensure adequate safety conditions. Critics point out that without strong monitoring mechanisms, this provision could expose women to vulnerabilities in poorly regulated industries such as hospitality, manufacturing, and gig-based delivery. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Code, 2020, while bringing together various labour laws, fails to incorporate specific measures to safeguard women from violence and harassment comprehensively.

The OSH Code also does not adequately address India’s longstanding compliance problems. The earlier Factories Act mandated facilities like crèches and sanitation, but enforcement remained abysmally weak. Merely codifying these rights in a consolidated law does not guarantee their realisation without institutional strengthening.

Do the New Labour Codes Strengthen Labour Rights?

The central claim of the Government is that legal consolidation promotes clarity, reduces duplication and enhances compliance. But the deeper question is whether this simplification translates into strengthened labour rights or whether it functions as an understated pathway to employer-centred deregulation. Across the Codes, several concerns persist:

Weakening of Unions and Collective Bargaining: The expanded notice requirements for strikes, and the constraints placed on union recognition and dispute resolution, have raised alarms about the shrinking space for collective bargaining. In a labour market already skewed in favour of employers, these restrictions deepen the imbalance.

Ease of Retrenchment: Raising the threshold for retrenchment permission to 300 workers enables employers to terminate workers more easily. Economic studies show that greater job insecurity often pushes workers into informal or precarious employment, undermining long-term industrial stability.

Ambiguous Social Security for Gig Workers: Recognition without rights creates a misleading sense of inclusion. Gig workers remain outside traditional employer-employee frameworks, and the Code does not mandate contributions that would secure pensions, provident funds or health insurance for them.

Dilution of Safety Standards: By shifting critical provisions to future rules, the OSH Code risks weakening existing protections — especially in sectors with historically high accident rates such as construction and mining.

Skeletal Legislative Frameworks:  All four Codes defer substantial amounts of lawmaking to delegated legislation. This centralises power in the executive and sidelines parliamentary oversight. Critics argue that this makes workers’ rights contingent on administrative discretion rather than statutory guarantees.

Constitutional Concerns: Questions arise under: Article 14 (differential treatment of workers based on establishment size, potentially arbitrary), Article 16 (fairness in employment procedures), Article 19(1) (c) (restrictions on forming associations and unions) and Article 21 (dignity and security of livelihood). While not necessarily unconstitutional, the Codes open space for litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Overlapping and Confusing Jurisdictions

The Delhi High Court on December 11, 2025, noted that The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, was brought in without repealing the previous 3 laws- Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. As reported in Bar and Bench.

There has also been a great deal of opposition from the labour unions with regard to the judicial recourse available to the working class. All cases pending in the Labour Courts and Industrial tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 have now been transferred to special tribunals under the new code. These tribunals have, however, not yet been put in place. This raises much doubts on the effectiveness of these tribunals.

In terms of the jurisdiction, there is an overlap between the Centre and the State Governments. While the boundaries are clearly demarcated between the central and the state governments under Section 109(1) and Section 109(2) of the OSH Code, what it does not specify is the implementation authority. Another point of contention is that of the fund allocation between the states. Till the time these issues are clarified and sorted out, no progress of any sort could be made.

Challenges in Implementation

Even the best-designed labour laws fail without effective implementation — and here, the Codes face formidable challenges. One bigger question that comes is up:  how well the government has resources and infrastructure for the electronic registration of unorganised workers, gig workers, and platform employees.?  A report by Mehrotra and Sarkar in EPW also point out that the current OSH Code does not take into account the high proportion of unregistered establishments (67.7 percent) in the unorganised sector, instead stating that ‘every establishment to which the code applies’ must be registered.

A major concern is the transition from labour inspectors to “Inspector-cum-Facilitators”, which shifts the enforcement philosophy from deterrence to self-certification and advisory compliance. Critics argue that replacing surprise inspections with web-based randomised checks significantly dilutes state oversight, especially in sectors notorious for exploitation such as construction, textiles, and mining. This new framework assumes that employers will voluntarily comply with safety and welfare norms; an assumption that may not hold in an economy where informalisation is widespread and labour violations are systemic.

Migrant workers, who make up a large share of India’s workforce, face particular vulnerabilities under the new regime. While the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code promises better registration and portability of benefits, the on-ground mechanisms required to operationalise these guarantees remain weak. The experience of the pandemic, when millions of migrant workers were left without income, shelter, or social protection, demonstrates the fragility of India’s labour governance system and raises serious questions about whether the Codes can be meaningfully enforced without substantial administrative strengthening.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Codes will depend not only on legislative intent but on the capacity of state labour departments, the willingness of employers to comply, and the ability of workers, especially those in informal and precarious sectors, to access grievance redressal mechanisms. Without significant investment in personnel, digital infrastructure, and awareness-building, the promise of simplification may translate into weaker protections and heightened precarity for millions of Indian workers.

Conclusion

The consolidation of labour laws into four comprehensive Codes was an enormous legislative undertaking, long recommended by commissions and economic advisors. Again, like the much-opposed erstwhile Farm laws (that were subsequently withdrawn because of intense agitation by India’s famer organisations (2020-2021), the Labour Codes have been brought in near unilaterally without effective debate, deliberations and discussions either with sake holder Worker’s Unions or Parliament. On paper, simplification seems beneficial. But simplification that simultaneously erodes substantive rights, weakens collective bargaining, and defers essential protections to executive rule-making demands scrutiny.

India’s economy does need labour reform. It needs modernisation, expanded social security, and flexible frameworks that encourage job creation. But reform must not come at the cost of workers’ security, dignity and constitutional rights.

Central to any step forward must remain the rights, welfare and accountability due to India’s marginalised workforce. While the Labour Codes attempt to position themselves as a new social contract for India’s workforce, several provisions remain vague. Most concerning is the push-back on a rights-based approach with constitutional provisions of judicial review to restricting redressal to tribunals etc. Finally, whether they become meaningful instruments of empowerment, or mechanisms that accelerate employer-centred deregulation, will depend on how the rules are drafted, how states implement them, and whether the opinions, concerns and voices of workers and unions are meaningfully included in shaping the next phase of India’s labour landscape.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

Code on Wages may be read here:

Industrial Relations Code may be read here:

Code on Social Security may be read here:

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code may be read here:

Related

Lockdown has reduced lives of bidi labourers to ashes!

Bandna Parab: A festival that celebrates light and life

Will the 125-year old Bolpur Poush Mela be held this year?

The post India’s New Labour Codes: A critical appraisal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Telangana’s Economic Engine and the New Rules of Work

At the heart of this policy change lies Hyderabad, the engine of Telangana’s economy. The city’s burgeoning Information Technology (IT), IT-enabled Services (ITeS), and broad commercial sectors are the state’s economic powerhouse, contributing over 65% of its Gross State Value Added (GSVA). With an IT workforce exceeding 900,000 professionals and generating exports second only to Bengaluru, Hyderabad is a globally significant economic hub. It is home to the largest international campuses of tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, making the state’s regulatory climate a critical factor in their operational calculus.

It is precisely this workforce that is targeted by the new law, G.O. Rt. No. 282. The order exempts “commercial establishments” from the standard 8-hour workday rule for overtime calculation. Previously, any hour worked beyond eight in a day was compensated at twice the normal rate. The new framework eliminates this daily threshold. Now, an employee can be asked to work 10 hours a day for five days a week at their regular wage, as overtime is only calculated after the 48-hour weekly limit is breached. This represents a fundamental reclassification of what was once premium-paid overtime into standard work, constituting a direct and significant transfer of value from employees to employers. The government’s framing of this as “flexibility” is misleading; it is not flexibility for the worker, but for the corporation, which can now schedule longer days at a lower cost, effectively normalizing a 10-hour workday and facilitating a “crunch culture” where long hours can be demanded to meet project deadlines without the financial disincentive of overtime pay.

The following infographic effectively shows what the change in the law does.

The Myth of Deregulation: Deconstructing “Ease of Doing Business” and FDI

The core justification for this policy—improving Ease of Doing Business to attract FDI—is rooted in a development narrative that has been empirically challenged and officially discredited. This narrative was largely shaped by the World Bank’s annual Doing Business report, a tool that for years pressured developing nations to weaken labour laws. However, in September 2021, the World Bank permanently discontinued the report after investigations revealed data irregularities and ethical breaches, fatally undermining its credibility. Any policy based on climbing the rankings of this defunct report is, therefore, built on a phantom metric.

Even before its cancellation, the report’s “Employing Workers” sub-index was heavily criticised for its inherent anti-worker bias. Its methodology explicitly penalized countries for having robust worker protections, such as setting maximum weekly work hours, establishing a meaningful minimum wage, or requiring notice for dismissal. The index failed to distinguish between the absence of regulation and the presence of efficient, well-designed regulations that foster stability and equity. It promoted a simplistic and ultimately harmful view that labour rights are an impediment to economic growth.

The notion that diluting labour laws is a primary lever for attracting FDI is not supported by the balance of economic evidence. A broad consensus in academic and institutional research points to a different set of factors as the true determinants of investment decisions, especially for the high-value, knowledge-based FDI that a city like Hyderabad aims to attract.

Investors are primarily drawn to large and growing consumer markets where they can sell their goods and services. Availability of Credit has been an important factor impacting ease of doing business, according to recent research. Ease of getting permits has been identified as an important factor in enabling ease of doing business. Reliable transport, consistent energy supply, and high-speed digital communications are non-negotiable prerequisites for modern business operations. Investors require a predictable environment with low political risk and stable economic policies to protect their long-term assets. A transparent, efficient, and predictable legal system for enforcing contracts and protecting property rights is paramount for investor confidence.

When viewed against these factors, labour law flexibility is, at best, a secondary and often statistically insignificant consideration. For labour-intensive, low-skill manufacturing, low wages can be a draw. But for the service and technology sectors that define Hyderabad’s economy, competing on the basis of longer work hours is a strategic mismatch. It is a “race to the bottom” that devalues the city’s core competitive advantage: its vast pool of highly skilled human capital. Weakening worker protections risks alienating this talent, fostering a culture of burnout, and paradoxically making the state less attractive to the very high-value companies it wishes to court.

The Productivity Paradox: Why More Hours Mean Less Output

The most fundamental flaw in the logic of extending work hours is the assumption that more time spent at work equates to more output. A vast body of scientific research from economics, public health, and management studies refutes this, revealing a non-linear and often inverse relationship between long hours and productivity.

Foundational research from Stanford University demonstrated that productivity per hour declines sharply after an employee works more than 50 hours a week. Beyond 55 hours, the drop is so precipitous that the additional time yields almost no discernible benefit. This “productivity cliff” means that a 70-hour workweek accomplishes virtually nothing more than a 55-hour one. The International Labour Organization (ILO) corroborates this, noting that while gross output may rise in the short term, output per hour steadily decreases with excessive working time due to fatigue, which leads to a higher rate of errors, poorer quality work, and an increased risk of accidents.

This is not merely a theoretical concept. Real-world experiments have consistently validated it. When Microsoft Japan trialed a four-day workweek, it saw a 40% surge in productivity. An extensive trial in Iceland involving shorter workweeks resulted in improved employee well-being alongside equal or even higher levels of output. Historically, Henry Ford’s pioneering decision to reduce the workday to eight hours famously led to a spike in productivity, as rested, motivated workers proved far more efficient.

Beyond the economic inefficiency, policies that encourage overwork are a significant public health concern. A landmark study by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ILO established that working 55 or more hours per week is a serious health hazard, leading to a 35% higher risk of stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease. The report attributed over 745,000 deaths in a single year to the effects of long working hours, framing it as a major occupational risk factor. The health consequences—including hypertension, diabetes, chronic fatigue, anxiety, and depression—translate directly into tangible business costs through higher rates of absenteeism, employee burnout, and increased turnover of skilled professionals.

A Normative Framework for Progress: Working Smarter, Not Longer

The Telangana government’s decision represents a choice between two competing visions of development. The first, embodied by the new amendment, views labour as a cost to be minimized. The second, grounded in evidence, views human capital as the primary engine of sustainable growth. The latter path is not only more equitable but also more effective for achieving long-term prosperity.

The alternative to a low-road strategy of extending hours is a high-road strategy of enhancing the value and productivity of each hour worked. This “Productivity-Welfare Flywheel” creates a virtuous cycle of growth. It begins with investments in technology, automation, and modern management practices that allow employees to work smarter, not longer. This includes streamlining processes, automating routine tasks, and fostering a results-oriented culture that measures value created, not hours logged.

When productivity per hour increases, it allows for better wages and improved work-life balance. This, in turn, enhances worker well-being. Well-rested, motivated, and healthy employees are more creative, make fewer errors, and are more loyal to their employers. This high-productivity, high-welfare environment becomes a powerful magnet for the highest-value FDI and the most sought-after global talent, spinning the flywheel faster and moving the economy up the value chain.

The role of government in this model is not to engage in a deregulatory race to the bottom but to act as a steward of a high-productivity ecosystem. This means investing in infrastructure, education, and R&D, and maintaining fair and stable regulatory frameworks. Corporate responsibility, in turn, extends beyond mere compliance to actively investing in the tools, training, and culture that enhance both productivity and well-being.

In conclusion, Telangana’s decision to extend working hours is a regressive step based on a flawed and outdated economic ideology. It misinterprets the true drivers of foreign investment, ignores the scientific consensus on productivity, and jeopardizes the health and well-being of its workforce. By treating the 8-hour day not as a fundamental right but as a bureaucratic hurdle, the policy threatens to erode the very human capital that has made Hyderabad a global success story. A truly competitive and prosperous future for states lie not in working longer, but in working smarter. It lies in rejecting the false trade-off between worker rights and economic growth and embracing a synergistic model where investing in people is understood as the surest path to lasting productivity and shared prosperity.

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

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court?

The post Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Telangana’s Economic Engine and the New Rules of Work

At the heart of this policy change lies Hyderabad, the engine of Telangana’s economy. The city’s burgeoning Information Technology (IT), IT-enabled Services (ITeS), and broad commercial sectors are the state’s economic powerhouse, contributing over 65% of its Gross State Value Added (GSVA). With an IT workforce exceeding 900,000 professionals and generating exports second only to Bengaluru, Hyderabad is a globally significant economic hub. It is home to the largest international campuses of tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, making the state’s regulatory climate a critical factor in their operational calculus.

It is precisely this workforce that is targeted by the new law, G.O. Rt. No. 282. The order exempts “commercial establishments” from the standard 8-hour workday rule for overtime calculation. Previously, any hour worked beyond eight in a day was compensated at twice the normal rate. The new framework eliminates this daily threshold. Now, an employee can be asked to work 10 hours a day for five days a week at their regular wage, as overtime is only calculated after the 48-hour weekly limit is breached. This represents a fundamental reclassification of what was once premium-paid overtime into standard work, constituting a direct and significant transfer of value from employees to employers. The government’s framing of this as “flexibility” is misleading; it is not flexibility for the worker, but for the corporation, which can now schedule longer days at a lower cost, effectively normalizing a 10-hour workday and facilitating a “crunch culture” where long hours can be demanded to meet project deadlines without the financial disincentive of overtime pay.

The following infographic effectively shows what the change in the law does.

The Myth of Deregulation: Deconstructing “Ease of Doing Business” and FDI

The core justification for this policy—improving Ease of Doing Business to attract FDI—is rooted in a development narrative that has been empirically challenged and officially discredited. This narrative was largely shaped by the World Bank’s annual Doing Business report, a tool that for years pressured developing nations to weaken labour laws. However, in September 2021, the World Bank permanently discontinued the report after investigations revealed data irregularities and ethical breaches, fatally undermining its credibility. Any policy based on climbing the rankings of this defunct report is, therefore, built on a phantom metric.

Even before its cancellation, the report’s “Employing Workers” sub-index was heavily criticised for its inherent anti-worker bias. Its methodology explicitly penalized countries for having robust worker protections, such as setting maximum weekly work hours, establishing a meaningful minimum wage, or requiring notice for dismissal. The index failed to distinguish between the absence of regulation and the presence of efficient, well-designed regulations that foster stability and equity. It promoted a simplistic and ultimately harmful view that labour rights are an impediment to economic growth.

The notion that diluting labour laws is a primary lever for attracting FDI is not supported by the balance of economic evidence. A broad consensus in academic and institutional research points to a different set of factors as the true determinants of investment decisions, especially for the high-value, knowledge-based FDI that a city like Hyderabad aims to attract.

Investors are primarily drawn to large and growing consumer markets where they can sell their goods and services. Availability of Credit has been an important factor impacting ease of doing business, according to recent research. Ease of getting permits has been identified as an important factor in enabling ease of doing business. Reliable transport, consistent energy supply, and high-speed digital communications are non-negotiable prerequisites for modern business operations. Investors require a predictable environment with low political risk and stable economic policies to protect their long-term assets. A transparent, efficient, and predictable legal system for enforcing contracts and protecting property rights is paramount for investor confidence.

When viewed against these factors, labour law flexibility is, at best, a secondary and often statistically insignificant consideration. For labour-intensive, low-skill manufacturing, low wages can be a draw. But for the service and technology sectors that define Hyderabad’s economy, competing on the basis of longer work hours is a strategic mismatch. It is a “race to the bottom” that devalues the city’s core competitive advantage: its vast pool of highly skilled human capital. Weakening worker protections risks alienating this talent, fostering a culture of burnout, and paradoxically making the state less attractive to the very high-value companies it wishes to court.

The Productivity Paradox: Why More Hours Mean Less Output

The most fundamental flaw in the logic of extending work hours is the assumption that more time spent at work equates to more output. A vast body of scientific research from economics, public health, and management studies refutes this, revealing a non-linear and often inverse relationship between long hours and productivity.

Foundational research from Stanford University demonstrated that productivity per hour declines sharply after an employee works more than 50 hours a week. Beyond 55 hours, the drop is so precipitous that the additional time yields almost no discernible benefit. This “productivity cliff” means that a 70-hour workweek accomplishes virtually nothing more than a 55-hour one. The International Labour Organization (ILO) corroborates this, noting that while gross output may rise in the short term, output per hour steadily decreases with excessive working time due to fatigue, which leads to a higher rate of errors, poorer quality work, and an increased risk of accidents.

This is not merely a theoretical concept. Real-world experiments have consistently validated it. When Microsoft Japan trialed a four-day workweek, it saw a 40% surge in productivity. An extensive trial in Iceland involving shorter workweeks resulted in improved employee well-being alongside equal or even higher levels of output. Historically, Henry Ford’s pioneering decision to reduce the workday to eight hours famously led to a spike in productivity, as rested, motivated workers proved far more efficient.

Beyond the economic inefficiency, policies that encourage overwork are a significant public health concern. A landmark study by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ILO established that working 55 or more hours per week is a serious health hazard, leading to a 35% higher risk of stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease. The report attributed over 745,000 deaths in a single year to the effects of long working hours, framing it as a major occupational risk factor. The health consequences—including hypertension, diabetes, chronic fatigue, anxiety, and depression—translate directly into tangible business costs through higher rates of absenteeism, employee burnout, and increased turnover of skilled professionals.

A Normative Framework for Progress: Working Smarter, Not Longer

The Telangana government’s decision represents a choice between two competing visions of development. The first, embodied by the new amendment, views labour as a cost to be minimized. The second, grounded in evidence, views human capital as the primary engine of sustainable growth. The latter path is not only more equitable but also more effective for achieving long-term prosperity.

The alternative to a low-road strategy of extending hours is a high-road strategy of enhancing the value and productivity of each hour worked. This “Productivity-Welfare Flywheel” creates a virtuous cycle of growth. It begins with investments in technology, automation, and modern management practices that allow employees to work smarter, not longer. This includes streamlining processes, automating routine tasks, and fostering a results-oriented culture that measures value created, not hours logged.

When productivity per hour increases, it allows for better wages and improved work-life balance. This, in turn, enhances worker well-being. Well-rested, motivated, and healthy employees are more creative, make fewer errors, and are more loyal to their employers. This high-productivity, high-welfare environment becomes a powerful magnet for the highest-value FDI and the most sought-after global talent, spinning the flywheel faster and moving the economy up the value chain.

The role of government in this model is not to engage in a deregulatory race to the bottom but to act as a steward of a high-productivity ecosystem. This means investing in infrastructure, education, and R&D, and maintaining fair and stable regulatory frameworks. Corporate responsibility, in turn, extends beyond mere compliance to actively investing in the tools, training, and culture that enhance both productivity and well-being.

In conclusion, Telangana’s decision to extend working hours is a regressive step based on a flawed and outdated economic ideology. It misinterprets the true drivers of foreign investment, ignores the scientific consensus on productivity, and jeopardizes the health and well-being of its workforce. By treating the 8-hour day not as a fundamental right but as a bureaucratic hurdle, the policy threatens to erode the very human capital that has made Hyderabad a global success story. A truly competitive and prosperous future for states lie not in working longer, but in working smarter. It lies in rejecting the false trade-off between worker rights and economic growth and embracing a synergistic model where investing in people is understood as the surest path to lasting productivity and shared prosperity.

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

Related:

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court?

The post Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Workers at Yazaki Pvt. Ltd., based in the Bengaluru Rural district, alleged that the company had verbally sacked at least 150 workers in December. The Yazaki plant in Lakkenahalli assembles wire harnesses for Toyota and Maruti cars. The workers said they were not given any termination notice, and their biometric authorisation was revoked. Around 50 workers were allegedly fired on December 13, following which another 100 workers were sacked the next day. There are 2,000 employees in the Lakkenahalli plant. The workers are being assisted by the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), which filed a memorandum with the Deputy Labour Commissioner (DLC) and educated workers about their rights and entitlements. They commenced a protest for reinstatement on Monday and are determined to continue until their objectives are met.

A sacked worker who wished to remain unnamed said he had worked at the company for five years. He started working at the Jigani plant, after which he was asked to shift to the Lakkenahalli plant outside Bengaluru city limits.

“I have been working at the Jigani plant since 2018. A few months ago, there was a change in management, and we were asked to shift to Lakkenahalli. It is very far away, so we initially refused. They promised a room and two meals daily if we agreed to shift. They also promised wage hikes. However, they did not fulfil any of their promises. My last salary was around Rs 11,000/month. It has remained unchanged for five years. On December 13, around 50 workers could not punch out after their shift ended. They were informed that their employment was terminated. The next day, some of us felt insecure about our employment status when we saw how our colleagues were dismissed. After our shift ended, we sat down inside the premises and refused to leave until we received some assurances from the management.”

However, the management did not meet them. Instead, the police were called. The workers allege that the police took photographs of the workers who had sat down on the spot. Another worker who wished to remain unnamed said that shortly after the police took the photographs of the workers, they were all sacked. At least 60 of the sacked workers are women.

Most of the sacked workers had completed training courses at Industrial Training Institutes (ITI). They had different trade certificates such as fitter, electrician, mechanic etc. Some among them also hold diplomas in electrical engineering. Before their termination, they were not unionised. However, they have started a Yazaki workers unit under the Karnataka General Labour Union. Around 100 laid-off workers joined the union.

Chandrashekhar, head of HR at the Yazaki plant, provided a statement to NewsClick about the termination of workers. Speaking on the phone, he said, “We have removed employees as per an agreement we have with them. We have recruited them under the Apprenticeship Act. We can give them training for up to three years. During that period, we can remove them anytime. Some political people are involved in the protests, and now, they are claiming permanent employment. The (terminated) operators told us that they are being forced to join the protests.”

When asked why they were not given a termination notice, he said it was not required.

“We provided mail communication to their HODs three days before termination. We are not required to give any notice to the workers. We were forced to fire some people because the business is down at the moment.”

While the workers believe there is a change in management, Chandrashekhar confirmed that that was not the case. The plant was shifted from Jigani to Lakkenahalli, but the management remains the same.

Maitreyi Krishnan of AICCTU condemns the use of apprentices for core production. She says, “Apprentices act was brought to provide short-term training to workers. It’s being abused by employers to deny job security and decent wages to people who are involved in core production. This practice has also been observed and criticised by the courts. Moreover, under section 25(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, you have to follow a certain procedure for layoffs. You need to take permission from the labour department and give workers at least three months of notice. This has not been done.”

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Karnataka: 150 Factory Workers Verbally Sacked by Auto Firm Yazaki appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thousands of workers and their kin will agitate at the Patiala district of Punjab on March 12, 2021 to decry the new labour and agriculture laws of the central government, said Contract Employees Struggle Morcha Punjab leader Varinder Singh.

In a press release on March 10, Singh said that the new labour codes that will be implemented from April 2021 will increase corporate exploitation of workers.

“According to the new labor law, the rules for fixing wages have been changed and the working class has been deprived of the new labor laws,” he said.

The Morcha also pointed out that despite four years of governance by the Captain-Amarinder-Singh-administration, other demands such as regularisation of contract workers in all departments have not been resolved. Further, union members demanded that retirement of all departmental workers be stopped, retrenched workers be reinstated, pay-scale of best post to be given to contract workers after 3-5-10 years of service, restoration of old pension and reinstatement of dismissed power workers.

Accordingly, workers will also protest towards this end at the Chief Minister’s hometown on Friday to stop the privatisation of government agencies and agribusiness. Singh warned that workers would intensify protests if the ruling powers refused to accept their demands.

Related:

Punjab’s Workers Union promises to look after fields until farmers return

Labour Codes Issues: Spelling out the ABCs

Gross Interference: MEA on UK Parliament debate over Farmers protests

Farmers to discourage voting for BJP in Assam and Bengal?

Mahila Kisan Diwas: A sea of dupattas Centre’s decry farm laws

Farmers observe special meeting to honour martyrs of the movement

Youths, women, workers and farmers prepare for Feb 6 ‘chakka jam’

The post Punjab workers to agitate against labour codes on March 12 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Parliament introduced labour codes on September 19 to consolidate and amend labour legislation in the country. The four codes, the Code on Wages, 2019 (already passed), the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and the Code on Social Security, 2020 are set to replace forty-four labour laws. Taking advantage of suspension of MPs, the Central government passed these Bills in the Rajya Sabha also without discussion. 

These legal changes could have a huge impact on workers, many of whom lost their livelihoods during the coronavirus lockdown. The situation is particularly dire for informal workers, including migrant workers.

A national survey of over 11,500 informal workers conducted by ActionAid Association in May 2020 showed the acute distress of workers in the past few months. It found that more than 78 percent respondents reported a loss of livelihood and over 48 percent respondents did not receive any wages after the lockdown.

In India, the informal sector forms the majority of labour share. As per the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017-18, 90 percent of India’s workers are engaged in informal sectors. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that the labour laws prioritise the protection, well-being, and rights of informal sector workers.

However, the labour codes, in their present form, do not adequately address issues of informal workers. They risk perpetuating labour segmentation. This means that a small percentage of regular workers would have access to fixed work, assured wages, and social security, while the rest in the informal economy and contractual employment are pushed further into insecurity.

From workers’ wages and bargaining capacity with employers to health and safety at the workplace, these amendments impact almost all aspects of their lives. Yet, the changes will be unilateral in nature if the renewed bills are not thoroughly discussed before the Parliament passage. The Codes’ changes could violate the tripartite mechanism, reduce space for feedback from states on this concurrent subject, and undermine workers’ rights.

The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Criteria for registration:

“(2) No Trade Union of workers shall be registered unless at least ten per cent of the workers or one hundred workers, whichever is less, engaged or employed in the industrial establishment or industry with which it is connected are the members of such Trade Union on the date of making of application for registration.

(4) A registered Trade Union of workers shall at all times continue to have not less than ten per cent of the workers or one hundred workers, whichever is less, subject to a minimum of seven, engaged or employed in an industrial establishment or industry with which it is connected, as its members.”

Problems:

• Registration of Trade Unions such as numbers of workers engaged or employed.

The Constitution of India guarantees the citizens a fundamental right to form associations or unions. Any compulsory condition for registration of trade unions would be the violation of basic and fundamental rights given by the Constitution.

Chapter on Standing Orders:

“The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to every industrial establishment wherein three hundred or more than three hundred workers, are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months.”

Problem:

The standing orders compel the employer to recognise and implement Labour Codes provisions, employee’s terms and conditions to minimise workers’ exploitation. Therefore, the chapter of Standing orders should be applied on each and every industrial establishment where ten or more workers are employed. Increasing the threshold to three hundred or more workers will allow smaller establishments to not formulate standing orders.

Preparation of draft standing orders by employer and procedure for certification:

“The employer shall consult the Trade Unions or recognised negotiating union or members of the negotiating council relating to the industrial establishment or undertaking, as the case may be, in respect of the draft of the standing order and thereafter forward the draft of the standing order electronically or otherwise to the certifying officer for certification.”

Problem:

There must be a proper mechanism and format in proposed code for engaging with workers while finalising the Standing order. The certifying officer should be proactively seeking objections from workers and their trade unions. There must be effective consultation and opportunity for every worker to understand and express their opinion on draft standing orders.

Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs:

“No person employed in an industrial establishment shall go on strike, in breach of contract without giving to the employer notice of strike within fourteen days of giving such notice.”

• Amendment impinges on workers’ rights to organize legal strikes.

In cases where strikes are organized against imminent endangerment to lives of workers, the notice to the employer should be sent within a few hours’ time. Earlier, only workers engaged in public utility services were required to give a notice to the employer of at least 14 days. This is now being extended to all factories, without any explanation in the bill.

Special Provisions Relating to Lay-Off, Retrenchment, And Closure in Certain Establishments:

“The provisions of Chapter X related to lay-offs, retrenchments, and closure in certain establishments shall apply to an industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently) in which not less than one hundred workers, or such number of workers as may be notified by the appropriate Government, were employed on an average per working day in the preceding twelve months.”

Problem:

This provision leaves room for the threshold of not less than hundred workers to be revised upward through an executive order. Any provision that allows the Executive to change the threshold at a later date, will render the entire legislative process meaningless. This clause should be amended to remove the discretionary power provided to Central and state governments.

The Code on Social Security, 2020

Chapter 1: Preliminary

“It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Code and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Code shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.”

Problems:

• Instead of universalizing social security, the Code continues with limiting definitions.

• Clause 2(6) retains old threshold of only those sites with 10 or more building and other construction workers

• It includes only those establishments with 20 or more workers under the provisions for PF,

• Excludes millions of micro and small enterprises from its ambit.

• Current draft does not include household or household enterprise in the categories of employers or establishments.

This must be changed to include household units as employers as the household is a site of work and employs workers including but not limited to domestic workers.
 

Chapter 2: Social Security Organisations

“The Central Government may, by notification, constitute, with effect from such date as may be specified therein, a Board of Trustees of the Employees’ Provident Fund to be called the Central Board, for the purposes of Chapter III and the provisions of this Code relating to that Chapter, for the administration of the funds vested in it in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government,”

Problems:

• No mention of ensuring equal women’s representation on the Central board.

• No framework to include SC/ST/OBC and female representatives on the Board of Trustees of the EPFO.

• No specificity on how sectoral representation would be ensured in the Unorganised Workers’ Board.

• Creates a multiplicity of structures without specifying the hierarchies among them.

• Does not talk of a minimum social security entitled to all workers.

In some cases, such as with the National Social Security Board or the State Unorganised Workers’ Board the functions and accountability of the boards has not been clearly established and has been left to delegated legislation.

According to the Ministry, the Code intends to provide comprehensive social security. However, the creation of separate mechanisms and structures for the organised sector and the unorganized sector does the opposite.

Chapter 5: Gratuity

“For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days’ wages or such number of days as may be notified by the Central Government, based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned.”

Problem:

• Lack of clarity in contractor/ employer responsibilities makes it difficult to ensure accountability and protect workers from violations.

Workers’ representatives and the Standing Committee recommends that the time limit of five years for payment of gratuity be reduced to one year. This will allow the provision to be extended to all kinds of employees including contract labours, seasonal workers, piece rate workers, fixed term employees and daily/monthly wage workers. As it is, the Code leaves out significant categories of workers.

The Committee also recommended making the Principal employer liable for payment of gratuity to employees when Contractors fail to do so. Currently, the Code does not delineate responsibilities of contractors and principal employers properly across the entire bill.
 

Chapter 6: Maternity Benefits

“No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.”

Problem:

It is difficult to establish continuity of work for women in the unorganised sector for even a relatively short period of eighty days. The Code must instead imbibe universal nature of maternity benefits, otherwise a majority of women who work in the unorganised sector would be excluded from its purview.

Chapter 9: Social Security for Unorganised Workers, Gig Workers, and Platform Workers

“The Central Government may formulate and notify, from time to time, suitable social security schemes for gig workers and platform workers.”

Problems:

• No specification on the schemes and provisions of social security to workers.

• Clause states that the Centre may formulate social security schemes for gig workers and platform workers.

• Noted categories are retained in a broad and indicative manner.

The Code does not establish separate schemes or mechanisms for migrant workers’ access to social security. It does not specify provisions for the portability of social security for inter-state migrant workers, which is a huge gap in the current context.
 

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

Health Safety and Working Conditions:

“The employer shall be responsible to maintain in his establishment such health, safety and working conditions for the employees as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

Problems:

• Does not properly recognize employer responsibility for maintaining health and working conditions

• Needs clear accountability setting clauses for the employer.

Welfare Provisions:

“The employer shall be responsible to provide and maintain in his establishment such welfare facilities for the employees as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

Problems:

Workers have well defined rights in getting welfare facilities in the establishment where they worked. Government has important duties in enabling these welfare facilities for workers. The text used in this section diluted the role of the Government.

Special Provision Relating to Employment Of Women

“Women shall be entitled to be employed in all establishments for all types of work under this Code and they may also be employed, with their consent before 6 a.m. and beyond 7 p.m. subject to such conditions relating to safety, holidays and working hours or any other condition to be observed by the employer as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government.”

Problems:

• Bill is confined to working hours.

• No provision for gender discrimination, atrocities, safety measures, etc. in recruitment transfer, promotion etc.

• No provisions for needs of pregnant workers such as specific hours of rest, special safety precautions, health and nutritional aspects.

Inter-State Migrant Workers:

“This Part shall apply to every establishment in which ten or more inter-State migrant workers are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months.”

Problems:

• No mention of Contractor duties of Inter-State migrant workmen.

• No mention of Principal employer’s liabilities and responsibilities when Contractors fail in duties.

Offences and Penalties:

“Under this Code or such regulations or rules or bye-laws or standards, the employer or the principal employer of the establishment … shall be liable to penalty which shall not be less than two lakhs rupees but which may extend up to three lakh rupees, and if the contravention is continued after the conviction, then, with further penalty which may extend to two thousand rupees for each day till such contravention continues.”

Problem:

• Proposed imprisonment penalty not substantial enough to act as a deterrent.

Offences by employees (Section 106)

“If any employee employed in a workplace contravenes any provision of this Code or any rules or orders made thereunder, imposing any duty or liability on employee, he shall be punishable with penalty which may extend to ten thousand rupees.”

Problems:

• Employee should not be prosecuted unless so demanded by the Chief Inspector-cum-Facilitator/ the District Magistrate.

• Employee should be provided a fair opportunity to defend their case.

• Union/collectives should be consulted.

• He/she should be provided protection.

Prosecution of owner, agent or manager of a mine:

“No prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager of a mine for any offence under this Code except at the instance of the Chief Inspector-cum-Facilitator or of the District Magistrate or of Inspector-cum-Facilitator.”

Problem:

• Protection of owner, agent or manager of a mine from prosecution.

This section should be deleted considering role dilution of Inspector-cum-Facilitator in checking the implementation of code for protection and promotion of rights of workers. 

The need of the hour is to ensure that labour protections are expanded to all informal workers. The government should devise mechanisms such as registration in workers’ boards, accessible grievance redressal systems and promotion of worker collectivization. It should also expand the scope of labour laws to include gig workers and platform workers who are a highly informalized and rapidly expanding segment of workers. The government must ensure universal social security for all workers. It should also ensure portability of entitlements and social security benefits to migrant workers and simplify the processes of accessing these entitlements.

The entire code may be read here: 

Related:

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Labour laws and rights in peril in India?

Dangerous dilution of labour rights underway in UP, MP and Gujarat

SC grant interim protection from coercive action to pvt employers for not paying full wages as per MHA order

The post Labour Codes Issues: Spelling out the ABCs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complete order may be read here.

The post Is the SC directed industry-worker negotiation plausible? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The migrant crisis in India has increased manifold since the coronavirus lockdown came into force. It’s as if that the problems which were brewing behind the scenes, burst through, coming to the fore to expose the apathy of the government towards the people who shoulder its core responsibilities.

As migrants lost jobs, lives and dignity, the brunt of the lockdown seems unrelenting. Migrants could not travel to their native villages due to the ban on interstate and intrastate transport. When their cries were finally heard and trains and buses to take them back home were started, they were asked to pay their own fare.

Now as the lockdown enters the 4^th stage, the Central government has asked everyone to be ‘Atmanirbhar’ or self-reliant, effectively asking the States to manage what the Centre failed at managing.

Trade unions called for a protest at Rajghat on May 22 to withdraw the changes in labour laws. Supporting the fight, the New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demanded that the all workers get full wages by their employers, termination of workers be stopped, retraction of 12-hour workdays, overruling of the labour law amendment ordinances and expansion of MNREGA to 150 days of work of all adults.

In a press statement issued a day before the protest, NTUI in this regards said that the call for self-reliance from the people of the country at a time when thousands of migrants are walking hundreds of kilometers to reach home, is painfully cruel.

Government of corporates, for corporates

NTUI says that the current government is of the corporates and for the corporates, saying that the Centre has been writing to the state governments to change their laws so that the burden on industry is minimized. Acquiescing, the Governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have done so speedily.

Sabrang India earlier reported that it has been said that states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat are paving a way to dilute the rights of these workers, in short aiming for diluting labour laws. The ordinances cleared by Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat cabinets, which would indiscriminately suspend all labour laws except a few basic ones, for close to three years. Notifications by the governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana have also suspended crucial portions of their labour legislations. These moves could force a large proportion of our population to inhuman servitude and destitution.

Uttar Pradesh, through an ordinance called ‘Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance, 2020’, has suspended 35 out of 38 labour laws for a period of 3 years. Ithas sought to introduce an ordinance suspending all labour laws for all types of establishments with the exception of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, clause 5 of the Payment of Wages Act (time of wage payment) and possibly the Maternity Benefit Act and the Child labour Act for a period of three years.

On May 7, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan announced that his government will exempt new manufacturing units from almost all provisions they have to follow and comply with under the Factories Act, 1948 for nearly three years. It has effectively suspended all labour laws for establishments employing less than 300 workers.

NTUI said that the government of Gujarat has offered all new investors freedom from all labour laws for 1200 days with the exception of the Minimum Wages Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

These three states along with the state of Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh Karnataka, and Tripura have also increased the length of a permissible a single shift from 8 hours a day to 12 hours a day with Bihar promising to follow suit. The governments of Maharashtra, Punjab and Rajasthan too have increased the shift to twelve hours with two additional provisions that the additional 4 hours’ work will be double overtime wages and the order is valid for three months. The increasing of the working day turns back the 150 year struggle for the 8 hours which is in fact ILO Convention No 1 that India ratified in 1921.

NTUI said that the BJP government has encouraged labour law ‘reform’ since it came to power in 2014. Through its state governments it speeded up ‘reform’ with four labour codes – three of which – the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code are still pending before the government.

These are a problem because, the Code on Wages passed in 2019 already introduces a floor wage creating the potential of a wage below the existing minimum wage undermining the very existence of the minimum wage. The other three effectively place barriers on the right to association and the right to collective bargaining along with all associated worker rights. With this agenda some distance away clearly both capital and government think it best pressed through state governments.

Lockdown a way to crush workers and unions

The government is also using the lockdown as a new approach to crush workers and unions says NTUI. It says, “While extending the lockdown into the fourth phase, the Union Government withdrew its own order of 29 March 2020 effectively allowing employers to be free to not pay wages and retrench workers as they wish from 18 May onwards. This is in response to the petition filed by the employers in the Supreme Court challenging the order of 29 March. Government is yet to put up a robust defence as the court engages in double speak.”

In reality, the NTUI said, nobody, irrespective of the political parties they belong to, made efforts to ensure that wages were paid and workers were retained across the country. Speaking of the thousands of migrants walking home, it said, “The most visible crisis of the working class is that of the non-resident migrant workers which was precipitated by an uncaring government that ordered a lockdown without a warning and was promoted by a mean, small minded and mendicant capitalist class that was not just willing to pay wages for the month of March but possibly in many cases had not paid wages for earlier months too. If government restricted free movement of people, the capitalist class promoted the freedom of this country to march towards starvation.”

Fiscal package only promoting debt

The fiscal package that followed – the Rs. 20 lakh crore package, the NTUI said was nothing but a package to promote debt. NTUI pointed out, “The BJP has come to realise that the economic crisis it has triggered since coming to government in 2014 is now with the lockdown beyond control. The domestic capitalist class did not invest in the last six years and they are not going to now. If it must attract foreign investment which is its only hope then it must seem fiscally prudent and not make fiscal concessions in order to maintain the country’s credit rating.”

In effect, the NTUI states that through the ‘five tranches’ of the package announced last week, the BJP government promised to privatize the entire public sector and deregulate key sectors along with a slew of loans that public sector banks would hand out without collateral. It says that the BJP was aware that it must offer more to make it all attractive for capital. “The only ‘factor of production’ the BJP believes it can control and that is labour. Hence a holiday from labour laws is part of the ‘package’ The BJP left no doubt about this when its government in Karnataka expressly asked the union government to stop the trains taking non-resident workers back home that workers are indeed a mere ‘factor of production’ for the BJP that will move and be moved at will and be at capital’s beck and call.”

The plan to ‘test, trace and isolate’ is yet to be put into place as the country enters the fourth phase of the lockdown and the plan to scale up medical facilities has not been implemented. NTUI says that while the private sector medical services have shut shop, the public sector remains under financed, understaffed and unprotected.

Mentioning that the attack on the working class working at the frontline has never been greater, NTUI says, “The battle to save the people affected by the pandemic rests on the shoulders of the country’s underpaid and overworked public medical and healthcare workers. The responsibility of keeping our cities and towns clean and the rest of us free from virus rests with tens of millions of our comrades who are safai karmacharis, ASHA and Anganwadi workers and ANMs who in large numbers are contract or ‘honorarium’ workers. The rest are all too having to return to work under unsafe conditions so that they have food at homes and can send their children to school. Like at all other times no one has contributed to the economy as has the working class. And no one has been exposed to lack of safety and insecurity as has been the working class.”

The clarion call by NTUI, “We are workers, we are not for sale”, is an apt depiction of what the labourers in India have been reduced to. However, with dissent being silenced at the CITU protest by the arrest of several union leaders, some even before the day of the protest, the action of the government is only a show of the long road the workers have to tread to claim their rights and their dignity.
 

Related:

Arrests mark a nationwide Protest Day observed by Central Trade Unions

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court?

Covid-19: How Indian states are snatching away the rights of workers

A tug of war ensues on ‘no work no pay’ principle

Labour laws and rights in peril in India?

Dilution of labour rights & protection condemnable: Trade Unions

Dangerous dilution of labour rights underway in UP, MP and Gujarat

The post New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Uttar Pradesh government, on May 15, withdrew its notification dated May 8 in which it was stipulated that daily work hours for factory workers will be increased to 12 hours and weekly hours will be increased from 48 hours to 72 hours. Further it had also amended the interval of rest by reducing it to half an hour which can be taken after 6 hours of continuous work, while the law stipulates one hour break after 5 hours of continuous work.

In Allahabad High Court

This notification was challenged before the Allahabad High Court vide a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and after the state government was issued notice, it appeared before the court stating that it has now withdrawn the said notification thus rendering the petition to be infructuous. There is absolutely no victory in the outcome of this case though. The reason being that the notification is separate from the UP government’s ordinance which suspends more than 30 labour operational in the state, including central as well as state laws and has similar provisions as the now withdrawn notification. 

Since labour is a concurrent subject, all states have supplemented central laws with laws of their own. This ordinance suspends several such laws giving absolute liberty and leeway to employers at several establishments to treat the labourers in a manner they please with, almost no interference from the government. The pertinent point to be noted is that the withdrawal of the said notification is nothing but a farce since similar provisions persist in the ordinance promulgated by the UP cabinet which has been sent to the President for approval.

The Allahabad High Court, after recording the state’s submission that the impugned notification has been withdrawn, disposed off the petition deeming it infructuous.

SC – Petition against UP, MP and Gujarat notifications

However, a PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the dilution of labour laws not just by Uttar Pradesh, but also Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. The petition filed by one Pankaj Kumar Yadav through Advocate Nirmal Kumar Ambastha seeks directions to quash these notifications issued by these states. Now that Uttar Pradesh has already withdrawn this impugned notification, it means that part of this PIL is already infructuous. It however does not mean that the entire PIL will be dismissed in toto since the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat notifications are still in operation.

These notifications have been passed under section 5 of the factories Act which gives the state government the power, in times of public emergency, to exempt factories from all provisions of the Act, for 3 months at a time.

The PIL states that the poor labourers cannot be exclusively burdened to bear the detrimental effects of economic growth of the economically ruined country. It states that the welfare of the labourers cannot be overridden in the interest of boosting economic activity. The PIL states that the exemptions proposed by these states “amounts to invasion on the rights of the citizens (poor labourers) under guise of exemption for economic development granted to their employers, which clearly defeats the ostensible object of the benevolent legislations enacted for comfort, welfare and safety of the poor workmen and therefore, same are arbitrary and unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed.”

The petitioner also points out that these exemptions are illegal as they grant the employers a free hand without giving due regard to physical, mental and economic welfare of the poor workmen and also amounts to infringement of the fundamental rights of these labourers. The petitioner states that these notifications have been issued without application of mind and hence, deserved to be quashed by the court.  

SC- Petition against all such notifications and ordinance of states

Another PIL has reached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the notifications issued by Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Punjab, and Goa.

The petition filed by a law student Nandini Praveen, through Advocate Nishe Rajen Shonker, contends that central laws cannot be abridged by state government by way of executive orders.

The notifications that have been issued by these states are under the power to exempt in case of public emergency as provided under section 5 of the Factories Act. The petitioner contends that the current situation does not qualify as a public emergency as per the Factories Act. The petitioner states that “public emergency” means “a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression of internal disturbance.” The petitioner states that inconvenience caused to the public at large and the administration due to the strict lockdown guidelines imposed by the Central and state government cannot be termed as an internal disturbance. There is no situation of ‘domestic chaos’ as well.

The petitioner states that these notifications and ordinances are arbitrary, unjust and illegal and are liable to be quashed for infringing upon the fundamental rights of the workers. The petitioner also stated that by suspending welfare and health measures of workers and by increasing work hours constitute forced labour and asked the court to view the term in a broader sense as subscribed to by the apex Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982 AIR SC 1473).

The petition further stressed upon how these notifications and ordinances impinge upon the labourers right to health, minimum wages, right against exploitation and forced labour and also constitutes violation of international covenants related to labour rights.

The petition seeks directions from the court to the Centre to ensure strict implementation of the central laws which have been affected/diluted by these notifications and ordinances and then quash the same for being arbitrary as well as violative of fundamental rights under Articles Article 19(1)(C) [right to form associations of unions], 21 [right to life] and 23 [prohibition of forced labour].

Since the second petition deals with a wider array of notifications, it is likely that both petitions before the Supreme Court may be combined and if the court finds these executive orders of the states to be invalid, the ordinances will become invalid even before becoming a law. If the apex court deems all these notifications and ordinances to be invalid and unjust, it will not only set a strong precedent for violation of labour rights but will also deter other states from taking the same course of action any time in the future. Indian Constitution cares a great deal about labour laws and the same is evident from the fundamental rights as well as the Directive Principles of state policy, which even if being unenforceable, are still vision of the drafting committee of the Constitution which cannot be overlooked when adjudicating upon the constitutionality of a law.

Related:

Gujarat reopens: Have economic considerations overtaken health concerns?

Karnataka refuses entry to migrants from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

The post Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as the COVID19 lockdown has targeted India’s most vulnerable, migrant workers who have been forced to take to walking hundreds of kilometres back home, the Central Govt and many states have used this period to snatch what little legal protection they had at work.

There have been some tears some shed, and some stories told of a section of India that Indians, state and society, had invisibilised these workers. As thousands of migrant workers walked hundreds of kilometres back to their homes, many home states have repealed laws that ensure protection from exploitation at work. In 2020, these moves are likely to worsen their sufferings and add to their woes.

The Ordinance issued by Uttar Pradesh effectively dilutes several of the labour laws existing in the state. The Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance, 2020 has been sent to the Centre for its approval since labour is a concurrent subject under the Indian Constitution. It should be a test for both the Modi 2.0 government as also the Adityanath government that faces an election in early 2022. The ease with which these steps have been taken however suggest the absence of this issue electorally.

What has the UP government done? It has brought in, what Central Trade Unions have dubbed, a “draconian” ordinance titled “Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption for certain labour laws ordinance 2020” under the guise of facilitating economic activities. In one stroke 38 laws have been made defunct for 1000 days (almost three years)! Of the remaining laws in force, only section 5 of Payment of Wages Act 1934, Construction Workers Act 1996, Compensation Act 1993 and Bonded Labour Act 1976 remain in force. The laws rendered defunct include the Trade Union Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, the Act on Occupational Safety and Health, the Contract Labour Act, the Interstate Migrant Labour Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, the Maternity Benefit Act etc.

 Other states too, including Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Uttarakhand have also suspended some of their labour laws for a certain time period (Punjab is ruled by the Indian National Congress).

What has the BJP-led MP government done?

The Madhya Pradesh(MP) Government has brought in drastic changes in the Factories Act, the Contract Act and the Industrial Dispute Act. Due to these amendments, employers will be empowered to hire and fire labour at their will; the right to  dispute raising and grievance redressal will be put on hold; the contractors will not be required to obtain license for supplying labour up to 49 persons and hence will function without any regulation and control; the inspection system will be virtually withdrawn and the entire enforcement machinery has been put under freeze –making whatever law is in vogue and the basic rights of the workers on wages, compensation, safety etc absolutely meaningless. Not only that, employers have ben also exempted from payment of Rs 80/- per labourer to the Madhya Pradesh Labour Welfare Board. The Shop and Establishment Act has been amended to let the shops function from 6 am to 12 at night; this means the go ahead for an 18 hour work day been given a go ahead by the MP government.

 What this means is, that an already harrowed labour class, the migrant labourers who have borne the maximum brunt of this pandemic due to non-payment of wages, absence of food security and any other social security (all made worse by the sudden lockdown) will suffer even more hereon. Not only will they be expected to work for longer hours but the hours that employers can demand in ‘over time’ has also been extended. Some states have decreased the interval of rest and some have increased the period of continuous working, without any break. These amendments and ordinances reek of blatant violation of labour rights and abject disregard to human rights. The changes also mean health risks since no compulsory rest every six hours can affect strength and overall immunity to diease.

Which are the labour laws have been diluted? Which states are diluting laws? What does it mean for these labourers?

Let’s have a look:

Uttar Pradesh

The laws that will remain suspended for next 3 years, once this ordinance is in operation in the state:

Apprentices Act, 1961 – The main purpose of the Act is to provide practical training to technically qualified persons in various trades. The objective is promotion of new skilled manpower. The law aims to regulate and exercise control of training of apprentices. The employer is required to train the apprentice and pay minimum stipend and the apprentice is entitled to health, safety and welfare benefits as per Factories Act, Mines Act and so on.

Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966 – The objective of this law is to provide for the welfare of the workers in beedi and cigar establishments and to regulate the conditions of their work. It compels (on paper at least) factories/establishments to maintain cleanliness, ensure ventilation, prevent overcrowding, provide drinking water, urinals and other provisions that ensure both the good health and overall safety of the workers. Further it also limits working hours to up to 9 hours a day or up to 48 hrs a week provided the worker is allowed to take break after 5 hours of work. It also entitles the workers to get paid for overtime work.

Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers Act 1981– This law protects the interests of cine workers. Cine worker is on who is employed in connection with the production of a feature film to work as an artiste (including actor, musician or dancer) or to do any work, skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical, artistic or otherwise and whose lump sum salary does not exceed Rs.15,000 per month. It forbids the employment of cine worker without an agreement in writing. The law also deals with disputes arising between cine workers and producers.

Contract Labour Act 1970 – This Act regulates contract labour and also lets the government decide in which industries such contract labour may be prohibited. For instance, If the work for which contract labour is employed is incidental to and closely connected with the main activity of the industry and is of a perennial and permanent nature, the abolition of contract labour should be justified. The law also provides for granting licenses to contractors for employing contract labour. For the benefit of contract labour, there are provisions that make it mandatory for the contractor to provide the labour with canteens, rest rooms, sufficient drinking water, first aid and so on.

The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979

It regulates the employment of inter-State migrant workmen and provides for their conditions of service. It applies to every establishment and contractor employing more than 5 inter-state migrant workers. Every establishment employing inter-state migrants needs to be registered as per provisions of this law. The law also provides that the wages should be at par with the same or similar kind of work as is being performed by any other workman and cannot be less than the wages provides for under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It also mandates payment of displacement allowance to the migrant worker and at the same time provide them with medical facilities, residential accommodation, protective clothing (wherever applicable) and so on.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – This act covers 12 sectors that amount for four-fifths of manufacturing output in the state. The law says that a 30 to 90-day notice period is required before firing workmen. It also says that in the case of manufacturing units, plantations and mines with 100 or more persons, lay-offs require the approval of the government. The Act provides for settlement of disputes between employer and employees. It also has provisions related to retrenchment process of the employees, procedure for layoff, procedure and rules for strikes and lockouts of the company.

Minimum Wages Act – This Act, allows the government to fix minimum wages to be paid to employees in certain industries. These are updated from time to time by the labour ministry.

Payment of Bonus Act 1965 – This Act provides for the payment of bonus to persons employed in certain establishments, employing 20 or more persons, on the basis of profits or on the basis of production or productivity. Any employee working for more than 30 days can receive bonus and is entitled for at least minimum bonus

Trade Unions Act 1926– This Act provides for registration, regulation, benefits, and protection for trade unions. The right of collective bargaining is granted to workers through trade unions and these trade unions protect the workers interests and become a link between employer and workers.

The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 – The Act regulates certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. It deals with retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of work and so on.

The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – This Act is effectively a welfare scheme for employees whereby both employer and employee contribute a certain amount into PF account of the employee who gets the matured amount at the time of retirement. Every establishment having more than 20 employees ought to have provision for deduction and contribution towards Provident fund.

It is pertinent to note here that even though UP submitted in Allahabad High Court that it has withdrawn its decision to extend working hours as per Section 5 of Factories Act, its ordinance proposing similar timings is still in place and once it receives President’s assent will also come in operation.

The inapplicability of the abovementioned laws means that migrant workers will not receive any kinds of benefits, there will be no government interference to see whether workers are treated well and provided with basic amenities like clean drinking water, rest rooms and in case of migrants, residential accommodation. There will effectively be no regulation on bonuses to be paid, beedi factory workers, cine workers will remain unprotected. Basically, employers of all establishments have been given a free hand vide this ordinance to treat its workers as they please, showing complete apathy towards the poor labourers, their welfare and their rights.

Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh promulgated Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 on May 6. Vide this ordinance it amended two state laws, namely the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, and the Madhya Pradesh Shram Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982.

Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961– The Act regulates working condition of workers in establishments employing more than 50 workers. After the amendment, this limit has been increased to 100 workers, thus exempting establishments with 50 to 100 workers

Madhya Pradesh Shram Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982 – The Act provides for constituting a fund that finances activities related to labour welfare activities. The amendment allows the state government, at its own discretion, to exempt any establishment from the application of this Act by way of notification.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – The government has exempted all new factories from some provisions of this Act. While Provisions related to lay-off and retrenchment of workers, and closure of establishments continue in operation, provisions related to industrial dispute resolution, strikes and lockouts, and trade unions will cease to apply for the next 1,000 days i.e. 33 months.

Factories Act 1948 – The state has exempted all factories from provisions of this Act that regulate work hours.

Haryana

On April 29, Haryana exempted all factories under the Factories Act, 1948 from provisions related to

• Weekly hours (sec 51) – which restricted working hours for the entire week to 48 hours
• Daily hours (sec 54)- which restricted per day working hours to 9 hours
• Interval of rest (sec 55) – which requires to give workers a break after 5 hours of work and a mandated break of 1 hours before the next 5 hours of work.
• Spreadover (sec 56) – The periods of work of an adult worker in a factory shall be so arranged that inclusive of his intervals for rest under section 55, they shall not spreadover more than ten and a half hours in any day

Haryana has increased working hours from 9 hrs to 12 hours for the next 2 months and has exempted factories from abovementioned provisions which means workers’ rest hours, weekly hours will not be regulated by the government giving a freehand to factories to exploit the workers and make them work continuously for 12 hours if they please.

Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand has also exempted factories from the same provisions, weekly hours, daily hours, spread over and interval of rest. It has increased daily hours from 9 hours to 11 hours with one-hour break between two shifts. This shall remain applicable until July 20.

Himachal Pradesh

The state has exempted its factories from abiding to provisions, weekly hours, daily hours, spread over and interval of rest of the Factories Act, 1948. This means that the upper limit on weekly hours i.e. 48 hours and daily hours i.e. 9 hours shall no longer apply. Also, a break of one hour, known as interval of rest, after 5 hours of work also ceases to apply.

Daily working hours have been extended to 12 hours and weekly hours, from 48 hours to 72 hours, with interval of rest of half an hour between 6 hours shift. This too shall remain applicable until July 20 i.e. for 3 months.

Gujarat

In Gujarat, new industries which will be given clearance within 15 days will not have to abide by any labour laws except Minimum Wages, Act, Industrial Safety Rules and The Employee Compensation Act for the next 1,200 days which means, for about 3.5 years from now. The state is yet to promulgate an ordinance to that regard, but it is expected soon.

This means that these new industries will have no government intervention, giving a free hand to employers to hire and fire anyone and anyhow they please. If the ordinance also gets rid of application of Factories Act, it would mean the workers will be exploited to a large degree, with no government regulated working hours or intervals of rest or upper limit on working hours. Until an ordinance from Gujarat comes along it is unclear if some regulations will come in place but at the outset it seems like labour rights will have no place in new industries of Gujarat.

The Gujarat government has also taken the illegal decision of increasing working  hours from 8 to 12 hrs and also desires to go the UP government way and suspend several laws for 1200 days. The Govts of Assam and Tripura and several others have been actively preparing to take the same route.

Punjab

Punjab has extended its daily working hours to 12 hours and spread over to 13 hours a day (increased from 10.5 hours a day as per the Factories Act, 1948). The workers shall be provided wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wages as provided for overtime under Section 59 of the Factories Act.

Rajasthan and others

Further, states like Rajasthan, Goa and Assam have also diluted their labour laws in some manner. On April 11, Rajasthan extended daily working hours to 12 hours, vide a notification. On May 8, Assam and Goa issued notifications extending working hours to 12 hours and further exempted application of provisions under sections 51, 54 and 56 of the Factories Act, as mentioned in the section for Haryana.

A total of eight state governments(Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Odisha, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar and Punjab) have enhanced the daily working hours from eight hours to 12 hours through an executive order in violation of the Factories Act, taking advantage of the lockdown situation.

Related:

SHOCKING! States ask incoming migrants to pay for institutional quarantine

Labour laws and rights in peril in India?

Gujarat reopens: Have economic considerations overtaken health concerns?

The post Covid-19: How Indian states are snatching away the rights of workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.