Delhi govt.'s move to amend labour laws will strip lakhs of workers of their rights, say experts
The first pertains to changing the applicability of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, to establishments with 10 or more employees. Currently, the Act, which includes several safeguards for employees, such as leaves, weekly holidays, and a month's notice for dismissal, is applicable even to establishments with one employee.
The government is also planning to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which protects workers in cases of lay-offs and closure of units employing 100 or more workers, by raising the minimum threshold of employees to 300.
Directions were issued to senior officials at a review meeting on June 30, chaired by Lieutenant-Governor V.K. Saxena and attended by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, to make these changes, said a source. However, the government is yet to release any official statement on the matter.
'No protection'
Anurag Saxena, CITU general secretary (Delhi), said introducing a threshold in the law will leave employees working in smaller establishments without any protection.
'Right now, if a person working at a small bakery or garment shop is fired illegally, he or she can file a complaint under the Act. Once the minimum threshold is increased to 10, workers at thousands of establishments with fewer than 10 employees will be placed outside the ambit of the law and left without any protection,' he said.
A senior Delhi government official said once the four Labour Codes, which were passed in Parliament in 2019 and 2020, are implemented, workers in smaller establishments will be provided with 'some level of protection'.
However, Mr. Saxena said, 'The labour codes could provide protection to employees in case of wages, but there is no safeguard for workers at a small establishment who are fired illegally.'
Concurrent List
The government is also looking to make changes to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which applies to commercial units across the country, as labour is part of the Concurrent List, which includes subjects over which the Union and State governments share legislative responsibilities.
Currently, the Act provides protection to workers in the event of retrenchment and closure of firms employing 100 workers or more, as prior permission is required from the government or notice is to be given for such actions.
The Delhi government plans to amend the Act to cover only establishments employing 300 or more workers.
Professor Surajit Mazumdar at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, said an employee's rights do not depend on the size of the establishment.
'As things stand, many labour laws meant to protect employees are not enforced properly. And now if you remove the workers from the ambit of the law itself, the workers won't be able to even fight for their rights,' he said.
The threshold in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has already been raised to 300 by the Bharatiya Janata Party governments in Gujarat (2021) and Assam (2018).
The same change has also been proposed in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which is part of the four labour Codes, which have not been implemented amid resistance from labour unions across the country.
Mr. Mazumdar said raising the threshold to 300 would be a way of introducing the labour Codes 'through the back door'.
Gujarat had also amended the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2019 (the equivalent of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954) six years ago to cover units employing only 10 or more workers.
'The total number of employees in establishments with less than 10 workers in Delhi, who will be affected by the change in law, will be in the range of 7 to 20 lakh and the actual figure will be closer to 15 lakh,' said Mr. Mazumdar. He used the data from the Economic Census, 2013-14 and Delhi Economic Survey 2023-24 to arrive at the conclusion.
Brijesh Goyal, chairman of Chamber of Trade & Industry, said the figure will be around 18-20 lakh workers, and Sucheta De, AICCTU national vice president, said the figure will be around 15-17 lakh workers.
'The entire practice is to keep most workers outside the scope of any legal protections,' Ms. De said.
When reached out, the CM's office did not offer any comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
28 minutes ago
- Hans India
Op Sindoor stands for India's new doctrine: Nadda
New Delhi: Union Minister and BJP president Jagat Prakash Nadda on Wednesday lashed out at the Congress during the Operation Sindoor debate in the Rajya Sabha. He accused the Congress of not taking any action after terror attacks when the grand old party was in power between 2004 and 2014. He further stated that trade between India and Pakistan continued even after these attacks. "The then government took no action in 2005 Delhi Serial bomb blasts, 2006 Varanasi terror attack, 2006 Mumbai local trains bomb blasts.... the point is - terror and trade and tourism continued between India and Pakistan then..." the BJP president said in the Rajya Sabha. '..We need to understand the limits of their (then Congress govt) appeasement that after 2008 Jaipur bomb blasts by Indian Mujahideen, India and Pakistan agreed on a specific confidence-building hume goliyoon se bhunte rahe aur hum unko biryani khilane chale (they kept on firing bullets, but we served them biryani)...They gave permission for a triple-entry permit to cross the LoC,' he added. Nadda stated that after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the then UPA government failed to mention this attack at the 2009 SCO Summit. He added that there was 'no political will' at that time to take action against the perpetrators of terrorism. 'We had the same police, Army, but there was no political the 2009 SCO Summit, there was no mention of such a big terror attack in 2008,' the Union Minister stated.
Hans India
28 minutes ago
- Hans India
You gave away PoK, we will get it back: Shah
New Delhi: Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched a scathing attack on the Congress in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday during the debate on Operation Sindoor, holding it responsible for the loss of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and asserting that it would be reclaimed under the Bharatiya Janata Party's leadership. Speaking in the Upper House, Shah remarked, 'I want to tell the Congress party, it was you who gave away Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), but it is the BJP that will bring it back.' He detailed India's retaliatory actions following the Pahalgam terror attack and emphasised that while India targeted terrorist infrastructure, Pakistan misconstrued it as an attack on itself. Shah added, 'We carried out targeted strikes on terrorist hideouts, on their headquarters, their organisations, their training camps and launching pads. Our attack was on terrorism, but Pakistan mistook it as an attack on itself.' Referring to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, Shah said, 'On 22 April, terrorists carried out an attack in Pahalgam. In response, we had the right to dismantle the entire terror ecosystem, a right recognised globally, and we exercised that right.' He further mentioned, 'When Pakistan said it didn't want conflict, we accepted it…' Shah reaffirmed the government's commitment to eradicating terrorism from Jammu and Kashmir. 'Today, standing in this House, I promise that Jammu and Kashmir will be free from terrorism. This is the resolve of the Narendra Modi government,' he declared.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
To become a developed country by 2047, India needs new economic ideas
Recent developments inimical to India's economic interests, such as China's curbs on the export of rare earths and fertilisers, and the reported withdrawal of engineers and technicians working on Foxconn's iPhone plants, raise the question: How should India respond? Any immediate response will more likely be geared towards ensuring that supply chain disruptions are minimal. Beyond that, however, there is a larger question: Will shifts in the global order, changes to the trading architecture and the weaponisation of trade, the growing economic imbalance between India and China and Delhi's economic and strategic realities, be the trigger for much-needed and far-reaching changes in the policy architecture? Will they spawn a new development compact, one that places growth and development front and centre? Looking back, growth has not always been the top priority. Post Independence, the overriding objective was to ensure the stability of the Union. Partition and the integration of princely states created the grounds for veering towards a strong Centre that prioritised stability. The centralising impulses of the Constitution also flow from this intent. To ensure that this compact held, deals were struck with various pressure groups over the decades. A strong Centre also complemented the overly centralised planning model adopted by governments in matters of economic policy. Sluggish growth over the years did not prompt a rethink of either approach or priorities. While some pro-business policy changes were introduced in the 1980s, increasing economic efficiency was not the predominant objective. As Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian have argued, these changes were less about the economy and more about 'garnering political support from existing business groups'. This framework, however, did not deliver prosperity. Growth was anaemic and poverty was widespread. The crisis in 1991 created the space for a new compact where growth became the overriding objective. Economist Stefan Dercon has argued that the policy shift in the 1990s was a decisive step towards a development bargain. Dercon views development bargain as a commitment by those who wield power — the country's political and economic elite — 'to shape politics, the economy and society to strive for growth and development'. This bargain — formulated at a time when the political system was transitioning away from a period of one-party dominance to an era of coalitions where power was less concentrated at the Centre — had buy-in from parties across the political spectrum. With a broad consensus on the nature of policies to be pursued, subsequent governments stayed the course. The NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee doubled down on the reforms push, and the UPA under Manmohan Singh trod along the path while adding a slew of welfare programmes to ensure the stability of this compact. This period coincided with the high noon of globalisation — a time when the rising tide of global trade lifted all boats. The pace of poverty decline accelerated and new pathways to upward mobility emerged. Investment activities gathered steam, exports surged, capital inflows soared and millions moved out of agriculture. While growth did slow down sharply during the UPA's second term, in large part due to policy mistakes, steps were taken during its final years to arrest the decline. In the run-up to the 2014 election, the overriding concern was to shore up the economic momentum. The BJP's rise to power was largely on the back of a promise to provide good governance and ensure high growth and development. The shift from a coalition era to one where a single party commanded a full majority was also taken as a sign that the pulls and pressures from allies would no longer be a hindrance in fulfilling the compact, which could now be pursued aggressively. The first few years of the new government did see several steps being taken towards this end. There was also a continuity in ideas — ideas that were birthed in earlier governments such as inflation targeting and GST found resonance. Somewhere along the way, however, the growth imperative weakened. The pandemic made matters worse. And as inequality rose and pathways for upward mobility shrivelled, the compact frayed and the political class pivoted towards populism. Cash transfers, tax giveaways and other populist schemes became the norm across political parties and governments as short-term electoral considerations took precedence over longer-term economic benefits. Few fresh ideas were articulated to reinforce the compact. Perhaps the Production Linked Incentive Scheme and the unstated strategy of promoting a handful of private firms as national champions can be considered new ideas. Even then, the limits of both were apparent. This weakening of the consensus around the compact comes at a time of significant changes in the global order. In the Trumpian era, trade, a pathway for many nations — from Bangladesh to Vietnam — to climb the ladder of prosperity has become a casualty. At this time, when the tailwinds of 'hyper' globalisation are no longer available, a strategy to rely just on trade deals with the developed world, but not seek deeper integration with countries at the heart of global supply chains, will limit the gains that are being envisaged. Alongside, the rapid adoption of AI will impact large swathes of IT jobs. Considering that the IT sector has provided millions with pathways to upward mobility — the great Indian middle class grew on the back of this sector — new drivers of growth are needed. This new reality is at odds with hopes that the country will become a developed nation by 2047. That goal, in any case, is a tall order, if the economic history of the world is anything to go by. Only a handful of countries have managed to ascend to the high-income category. And even if India manages to sustain its growth over the coming two decades — per capita income has grown at 5.7 per cent in dollar terms over the past 10 years — then average incomes would be just shy of $10,000 in 2047. The question is whether this or higher growth can be achieved. Growth does not miraculously endure. It isn't easy to sustain the momentum over such long periods without a development bargain and without an elite compact. Unless that happens, the goal of becoming a developed country will remain elusive.
