Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified when applications open.
To contain the spread of COVID-19 in India, the central government imposed a nation-wide lockdown on March 24, 2020. Under the lockdown most economic activities, other than those classified as essential activities, were suspended. States have noted that this loss of economic activity has resulted in a loss of income for many individuals and businesses. To allow some economic activities to start, some states have provided relaxations to establishments from their existing labour laws. This blog explains the manner in which labour is regulated in India, and the various relaxations in labour laws that are being announced by various states.
How is labour regulated in India?
Labour falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. Therefore, both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws regulating labour. Currently, there are over 100 state laws and 40 central laws regulating various aspects of labour such as resolution of industrial disputes, working conditions, social security, and wages. To improve ease of compliance and ensure uniformity in central level labour laws, the central government is in the process of codifying various labour laws under four Codes on (i) industrial relations, (ii) occupational safety, health and working conditions, (iii) wages, and (iv) social security. These Codes subsume laws such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Factories Act, 1948, and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
How do state governments regulate labour?
A state may regulate labour by: (i) passing its own labour laws, or (ii) amending the central level labour laws, as applicable to the state. In cases where central and state laws are incompatible, central laws will prevail and the state laws will be void. However, a state law that is incompatible with central laws may prevail in that state if it has received the assent of the President. For example: In 2014, Rajasthan amended the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under the Act, certain special provisions with regard to retrenchment, lay-off and closure of establishments applied to establishments with 100 or more workers. For example, an employer in an establishment with 100 or more workers required permission from the central or state government prior to retrenchment of workers. Rajasthan amended the Act to increase the threshold for the application of these special provisions to establishments with 300 workers. This amendment to the central law prevailed in Rajasthan as it received the assent of the President.
Which states have passed relaxations to labour laws?
The Uttar Pradesh Cabinet has approved an ordinance, and Madhya Pradesh has promulgated an ordinance, to relax certain aspects of existing labour laws. Further, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have notified relaxations to labour laws through rules.
Madhya Pradesh: On May 6, 2020, the Madhya Pradesh government promulgated the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. The Ordinance amends two state laws: the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, and the Madhya Pradesh Shram Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982. The 1961 Act regulates the conditions of employment of workers and applies to all establishments with 50 or more workers. The Ordinance increases this threshold to 100 or more workers. Therefore, the Act will no longer apply to establishments with between 50 and 100 workers that were previously regulated. The 1982 Act provides for the constitution of a Fund that will finance activities related to welfare of labour. The Ordinance amends the Act to allow the state government to exempt any establishment or class of establishments from the provisions of the Act through a notification. These provisions include payment of contributions into the Fund by employers at the rate of three rupees every six months.
Further, the Madhya Pradesh government has exempted all new factories from certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Provisions related to lay-off and retrenchment of workers, and closure of establishments will continue to apply. However, the other provisions of the Act such as those related to industrial dispute resolution, strikes and lockouts, and trade unions, will not apply. This exemption will remain in place for the next 1,000 days (33 months). Note that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 allows the state government to exempt certain establishments from the provisions of the Act as long as it is satisfied that a mechanism is in place for the settlement and investigation of industrial disputes.
Uttar Pradesh
The Uttar Pradesh Cabinet has approved the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance, 2020. According to news reports, the Ordinance seeks to exempt all factories and establishments engaged in manufacturing processes from all labour laws for a period of three years, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. These conditions include:
Wages: The Ordinance specifies that workers cannot be paid below minimum wage. Further, workers must be paid within the time limit prescribed in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Act specifies that: (i) establishments with less than 1,000 workers must pay wages before the seventh day after the last day of the wage period and (ii) all other establishments must pay wages before the tenth day after the last day of the wage period. Wages must be paid into the bank accounts of workers.
Health and safety: The Ordinance states that provisions of health and safety specified in the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 and Factories Act, 1948 will continue to apply. These provisions regulate the usage of dangerous machinery, inspections, and maintenance of factories, amongst others.
Work Hours: Workers cannot be required to work more than eleven hours a day and the spread of work may not be more than 12 hours a day.
Compensation: In the case of accidents leading to death or disability, workers will be compensated as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Bonded Labour: The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 will continue to remain in force. It provides for the abolition of the bonded labour system. Bonded labour refers to the system of forced labour where a debtor enters into an agreement with the creditor under certain conditions such as to repay his or a family members debt, due to his caste or community, or due to a social obligation.
Women and children: Provisions of labour laws relating to the employment of women and children will continue to apply.
It is unclear if labour laws providing for social security, industrial dispute resolution, trade unions, strikes, amongst others, will continue to apply to businesses in Uttar Pradesh for the period of three years specified in the Ordinance. Since the Ordinance is restricting the application of central level labour laws, it requires the assent of the President to come into effect.
Changes in work hours
The Factories Act, 1948 allows state governments to exempt factories from provisions related to work hours for a period of three months if factories are dealing with an exceptional amount of work. Further, state governments may exempt factories from all provisions of the Act in the case of public emergencies. The Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Assam and Uttarakhand governments passed notifications to increase maximum weekly work hours from 48 hours to 72 hours and daily work hours from 9 hours to 12 hours for certain factories using this provision. Further, Madhya Pradesh has exempted all factories from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 that regulate work hours. These state governments have noted that an increase in work hours would help address the shortage of workers caused by the lockdown and longer shifts would ensure fewer number of workers in factories allowing for social distancing to be maintained. Table 1 shows the state-wise increase in maximum work hours.
Table 1: State-wise changes to work hours
|
State |
Establishments |
Maximum weekly work hours |
Maximum daily work hours |
Overtime Pay (2x ordinary wages) |
Time period |
|
All factories |
Increased from 48 hours to 72 hours |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Not required |
Three months |
|
|
All factories |
Increased from 48 hours to 72 hours |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Required |
Three months |
|
|
All factories distributing essential goods and manufacturing essential goods and food |
Increased from 48 hours to 72 hours |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Required |
Three months |
|
|
All factories |
Not specified |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Required |
Two months |
|
|
All factories |
Increased from 48 hours to 72 hours |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Not required |
Three months* |
|
|
All factories and continuous process industries that are allowed to function by government |
Maximum 6 days of work a week |
Two shifts of 12 hours each. |
Required |
Three months |
|
|
All factories |
Not specified |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Required |
Three months |
|
|
Goa |
All factories |
Not specified |
Increased from 9 hours to 12 hours |
Required |
Approximately three months |
|
All factories |
Not specified |
Not specified |
Not specified |
Three months |
Note: *The Uttar Pradesh notification was withdrawn
A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
