AITUC’s Kaur warns labour codes enable widespread easy firing
Kaur told Moneycontrol that changes made to the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code—particularly in how a “factory” is defined—have created serious gaps in worker protection. She explained that by raising the threshold for what qualifies as a factory, many smaller units are now excluded from even the most basic safety requirements. According to her, this exemption leaves a large section of workers more vulnerable than ever, with employers no longer obligated to follow essential health and safety norms.
The recently enacted labour codes in India have sparked growing concern among trade union leaders, who warn that these laws may tilt the balance too far in favour of employers at the expense of workers’ rights and safety. Amarjeet Kaur, General Secretary of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), told Moneycontrol that the new Industrial Relations Code (IRC) and related legislations have effectively made it easier for employers to hire and fire staff, leaving millions of workers vulnerable.
According to Kaur, roughly 60–70 percent of industrial units across the country can now lay off employees without seeking prior government approval. But 60–70 percent of units have fewer people in their workforce. How can we say labour codes are employee-friendly then?”
Under the current IRC, establishments with 300 or more workers must still seek government permission before layoffs or shutdowns, a measure intended to protect workers from sudden job loss. However, establishments employing fewer than 300 staff now have far greater flexibility to adjust their workforce without bureaucratic oversight. While employers must still follow mandatory notice periods and compensation requirements, the absence of prior approval significantly weakens institutional safeguards for employees in smaller units.
Beyond layoffs, Kaur highlighted serious gaps in worker safety and protection introduced by tweaks to the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (OSH Code), 2020. One critical change relates to how a “factory” is defined. Smaller units are now excluded from several basic safety compliance measures, meaning a significant portion of workers are left without essential protections. “Every worker needs different kinds of protection,” Kaur explained. “For instance, a worker in the atomic energy sector would require specialized safety instruments, very different from those needed by someone engaged in construction work or electricity repair. But the Codes do not mention separate safety measures tailored to these sectors.”
Another concern she raised is the dismantling of protections for migrant workers. Under the earlier Inter-State Migrant Workmen (ISMW) Act, contractors were legally required to provide every migrant worker with a physical passbook containing employment details, wages, allowances, and other conditions of service. The new OSH Code, however, does not mandate a physical passbook. While employers must maintain internal records and issue appointment letters, the consolidated, portable passbook specific to migrant workers has been removed. Kaur argued that this reduces transparency and accountability, leaving migrant workers at greater risk of exploitation.
The question of minimum wages also remains a pressing issue. Kaur stressed that the government should set minimum wages through a representative committee including labour union members. “If 60–70 percent of units can lay off workers without any approval, who will ensure that wages are paid on time? Workers lose both security and bargaining power when oversight is weakened,” she said.
For Kaur, the combination of easier layoffs, diluted safety requirements, and weaker protections for migrant workers represents a serious shift in labour policy—one that prioritizes employer flexibility over the rights and well-being of employees. She argued that while the Codes claim to be “employee-friendly,” the reality for most workers, particularly in smaller units, is far from it.
The larger implications of these changes extend beyond immediate job security. By exempting smaller factories from basic compliance and eliminating mechanisms like the migrant workers’ passbook, the Codes may also reduce workplace transparency, weaken enforcement of safety standards, and make it harder for labour inspectors to track violations. Workers in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and service industries, where smaller units predominate, could be disproportionately affected.
Kaur’s warnings highlight a tension at the heart of India’s new labour reforms: while the government promotes them as simplifications that will attract investment and streamline industry, the reality on the ground may be harsher for the workforce. The removal of oversight and protections risks creating a system in which employees can be dismissed or placed in unsafe working conditions with limited recourse, undermining decades of progress in labour rights and social security.
For now, labour unions like AITUC are calling for a reassessment of the Codes, emphasizing the need for continued government oversight, sector-specific safety measures, robust protections for migrant workers, and enforceable mechanisms to ensure timely wage payments. Without these safeguards, they warn, the Codes may encourage a culture of arbitrary layoffs, unsafe workplaces, and exploitative practices—leaving the very workforce that drives India’s growth exposed to unprecedented vulnerabilities.
Kaur concluded with a pointed reminder: “Labour codes must protect workers, not just make life easier for employers. If we ignore these gaps, we are effectively creating a system where the majority of workers are left unprotected, with no one accountable for their safety, livelihood, or rights.”