Diluting Labour Laws: Depriving workers of rights

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected the economy severely, resulting in growth slowdown in major sectors. The agriculture, automobile, hotel, travel and tourism, manufacturing and services sectors are all hit. The suspension of economic activities during the national lockdown period in India has cost the economy $235 billion, Barclays Company estimated. According to the Chicago Booth’s Rustandy Center for Social Sector Innovation, which analysed data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), has observed that more than 84% of households in India lost income during the lockdown period.

In this backdrop, some state governments have passed ordinances and new regulations affecting the labour laws and their application. Some 10 states have brought about changes in the labour laws, mainly in The Factories Act, 1948, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and The Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Act, 1988. The state governments have claimed that these measures are necessary (i) to kickstart economic activities (ii) to attract foreign investment and (iii) to boost growth prospects.

Soon after promulgation of these ordinances, trade unions across the country, rights activists, labour experts and even industrialists condemned these measures as being contrary to workers’ rights. These measures violate the established standards of International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Indian Constitution. Many PILs (Public Interest Litigation) were filed in the respective state high courts and in the Supreme Court. The Allahabad High Court sent notices to the Uttar Pradesh government, following which the UP government withdrew one order, that on the 12-hour work shift.

Labour is a subject in the Concurrent List and hence both Union and state governments are competent to enact legislations pertaining to labour welfare. Item 24 on the Concurrent List specifically mentions provisions for the “welfare of labour, including conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits” of Article 246 of the Constitution. Any changes in the laws related to the subjects listed in the Concurrent List have to be made in consultation with the Union government. Otherwise, the law passed by the Union government stands valid as per Article 254(1). The state governments seem to have ignored this while issuing their ordinances.

The weakening of labour laws have severely constrained the welfare and justice agenda embedded in the Constitution.

Increase in working hours: The change in working hours from eight to 12 hours is the most serious one. This violates the standards of the ILO Hours of Work (Industry) Convention (No. 1) of 1919 with regard to optimum working hours as a labour right. The additional burden of overtime work puts the worker’s health and safety at risk. It also disturbs the work-life balance, which eventually affects the productivity of the worker. It is surprising to note that a few state governments (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) had clearly specified that there would not be any overtime payment for the additional hours of work.

Loss of bargaining power: Most of the relaxations curtail the bargaining power of the workers through the means of trade unions and associations. This is contrary to the Tripartite Consultation of ILO Convention No 144. It is a standard requirement that the government (State), employers and workers must all be involved in the formulation of policy changes in the matters of labour working conditions and related matters.

Low wages: Many state governments have brought changes in the provision of maintenance of workers’ register. This may help factories and industries to employ more and more workers on contract with lower wages and more work. With this, the probability of discontinuity and irregularity of wages is high, thereby pushing workers into financial marginalisation and exclusion from minimum wages.

Precarious working conditions: The increase in working hours require increase in drinking water, toilet, health and hygiene, medical and other occupational safety measures. With the suspension of industrial ‘inspection’, the worker is forced to adjust to unsatisfactory, hazardous working circumstances. To illustrate, the ILO report on Labour Standards (2019) with respect to SEZ inspections has observed that even with the maintained information, the committee could not make “an informed assessment of the protection of workers in these zones”.

Deprivation of justice: The changes in the labour laws have the potential to take away the rights of workers from approaching the labour court and judiciary. This means the right to seek justice as a citizen would be in suspension for the period the ordinances operate.

Uphold labour rights

The use of the law to appropriate the rights of working class people is the agenda of neoliberal governance regimes. In the era of contractualisation of labour, workers’ rights are severely compromised as the governing power has shifted from State to the private sector. The withdrawal of the State from welfare is underway, as is evident from these ordinances. These measures will take away the dignity of labour and its associated rights. In “A Tale of Three States: Labour Reforms in the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal,” Kingshuk Sarkar says that attention was given to “ensuring ease of doing business rather than protecting workers’ rights and entitlements.”

The real problem lies not with the labour laws but with the nature of the State. With these ordinances, the state governments have eroded the principles of ‘cooperative federalism’. In the context of the Covid-19 crisis, it would be prudent for the Indian State to uphold workers’ rights and dignity to enhance its own social legitimacy and public trust.

(The writer is PhD Fellow, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru)