By Bruhaspati Samal
I n the political economy of contemporary India, few reforms have invited such sharp polarisation as the four Labour Codes notified for nationwide implementation through the Gazette Notification dated 21 November 2025. Even before the ink on the notification dried, the streets began to reverberate with protests from Central Trade Unions, independent federations, and workers’ collectives across the country. It’s alleged that the present Government’s approach beginning 2019–20, to club the laws into the Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, Code on Social Security, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code are pro-corporate. It dilutes long-established labour rights, lengthen the working day, weaken workplace safety, restrict formation and functioning of trade unions, and endanger the social security framework that evolved through 44 specialised labour laws painstakingly enacted over nearly a century, say critics.
Also Read
However, the Government describes it as simplification, rationalisation, and a catalyst for “ease of doing business.” The divergence between the two narratives reflects a deeper conflict—between the objective of economic efficiency and the imperative of protecting labour rights. The Code on Wages is the first example of this ambiguity. It unifies the Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, Bonus Act, and Equal Remuneration Act under a single legislative umbrella. On paper, it seeks uniformity, but the core concern remains that the Code does not mandate a binding national floor wage. States may still legally fix wages below this benchmark, thereby defeating the purpose of creating minimum income security for workers.
By making wage fixation a matter of executive discretion, the Code risks legitimising artificially low wages under the guise of competitiveness, a fear repeatedly expressed by trade unions. The Industrial Relations Code is arguably the most controversial of all. It raises the threshold for the applicability of Standing Orders from establishments with 100 workers to those with 300, effectively allowing a large proportion of workplaces to hire and fire workers without due process. This single change alters the bargaining power of nearly 70 per cent of workers in the organised sector. The Code on Social Security, which promises universal coverage, presents another layer of concern. It claims to bring gig workers, platform workers, and unorganised workers under its ambit. However, the language of the Code is largely discretionary, allowing the Government to “frame schemes” without creating binding statutory obligations. Funding mechanisms are vague, employer contributions are uncertain, and the cap on contributions from aggregators risks making benefits too small to matter. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code replaces thirteen individual laws, including those governing mines, factories, contract labour, and inter-state migrant workers.
While the Government argues that it reduces overlap, many of the detailed and mandatory safety requirements of earlier laws have been diluted. The threshold for application has been raised, leaving workers in smaller establishments outside the purview of formal safety regulation. The implications of the four Labour Codes reach far beyond legal drafting and touch the core realities of India’s labour landscape, which is already marked by long working hours, low wages, high informality, and one of the world’s highest rates of occupational injuries. Insecure workplaces often undermine productivity and long-term industrial stability. Yet it would be mistaken to conclude that labour reforms are unnecessary. India needs modern frameworks that balance economic dynamism with social justice. This requires reforms that preserve essential rights through genuine tripartite consultation, scientific wage determination, universal and well-funded social security, stronger safety norms, and protected migrant worker benefits.
Ultimately, labour reforms must emerge from consensus, not confrontation. Simplification is welcome, but simplification that sidelines worker welfare is not reform—it is regression. If the Government embraces dialogue and addresses the substantive concerns raised by workers, the Labour Codes can be reshaped into instruments that genuinely promote growth while upholding the rights of the millions who are the backbone of the nation’s economy.
The writer is a service union representative and a columnist
