The Social Security, Wages, Industrial Relations, and Occupational Health Codes are the result of the trendy consolidation of 29 labour regulations by the Indian Labour Ministry into four Codes (hence referred to as “Codes” in this article ). The Codes might potentially allow firms to increase the standard 9-hour work shift within the Indian factories Act, 1948, to 12 hours per day but for a reasonable period of four days per week, giving workers a three-day recuperation period per week. Poor working conditions, which have an impact on the health and safety of workers, including men, women, and children, have been around for centuries. Numerous labour laws recognised and knew these risk factors as early as the early 19th century, including the lack of free time, low earnings, and precarious living conditions, among other things. Even though this issue has long been acknowledged, the idea for growth is being attempted to be adopted without giving proper consideration to these acknowledgements. This article offers a critical analysis of this change and makes several arguments for its urgent reconsideration because it completely disregards a person’s whole well-being.
The 1919 Hours of Working (Industry) Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereafter “UDHR”) are directly infringed on by the anticipated changes, to start. The earlier rule restricts the weekly and daily work hours of every staff member to 48 hours and 8 hours, respectively. The latter, under Article 24, of the UDHR, which some have dubbed the “least-defensible” of societal rights. It is vital to (re)emphasize the significance of possessing a ‘right’ that endorse for rest and leisure because there seems to be some type of prejudice against such a ‘right’ as it has been generally disregarded by politicians, leisure scholars, and professionals.
The phrase “Leisure and rest” refers to much more than just time off from or a recuperation from work. What is sometimes neglected or disregarded is that it also serves as a concurrent right, which is crucial for enabling and realising the numerous rights protected by different national and/or international instruments. It also has tight relations to a key idea in the body of literature on “rights”& Dignity. This issue is being raised in several situations. The phrase “well-being” is used here not just in the epicurean meaning, which would encompass things like a person’s health, but also in the sense of a person’s capacity for self-actualization.
The hedonistic definition of wellbeing encompasses both physical and mental health. There is a wealth of scientific information that cautions against the risk of extended work hours per se, regardless of the rest days—studies that adviseopposed implementing it because of its serious effects on both physical and mental health. Working 12-hour days, in particular, has a strong correlation to inadequate sleep, which in turn raises the risk(s) of diabetes, obesity, occupational health, high blood pressure, cerebral vascular accidents, myocardial infarction, and even work errors. In contrast with working 8-hour days, working 12-hour days specifically boosts the risk of workplace injuries by 14%. Extended hours of work also negatively affect an individual’s sleep, which is a right expressly guaranteed by the Indian court as an element of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This is particularly relevant in the case of physical employment. In addition to these studies, the scholarship elaborates on the beneficial effects of sufficient rest and leisure, linking them to overall life peace of mind, an individual’s creative capacity and freedom of expression, and creating a supportive environment for person growth.
Now, attaining psychological well-being is considered in the context of “self-actualization.” The capacity method, the second normative assertion in Sen’s theoretical framework, asserts that human functioning or capacities should be used to define well-being. A person’s capacity is their potential to be or act in certain ways, and functioning is the realisation of those potentials. The first normative assertion Sen reflects—real Freedom—is the most crucial component in realising these talents. The freedom is “real” in the knowledge that it offers significant chances to succeed rather than merely the “formal” ability to be or do something.
The working hour rule interferes with an individual’s ability to realise their potential in two distinct manners.
1. First, it prevents people from accomplishing well-being, even in the hedonistic sense addressed above. If a person is unwell or is even likely to be unwell and/or isn’t getting enough sleep, they are placed in an incapable position.
2. The second by the (Indian) context in which this rule is applied. We will abstain from providing any more explanation for the initial point because it is largely straightforward. The second argument is more developed, and it considers the work hour limit in light of two current Indian scenarios: first, the country’s poor application of laws, and minute, the general lack of knowledge on the part of the populace.
It is well established that concepts or rules by themselves cannot effectively regulate society. Any change in the law must be backed by corresponding shifts in culture, legal awareness, and effective application of the new laws. The country struggles with inadequate adherence to its own laws, including those governing work. One issue that is highly pertinent to this discussion involves the president’s approval of a proposal to weaken and consolidate current labour rules in order to stimulate the economy. Additionally, certain sections of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, and the Factories Act of 1948 were amended by the respective states through the Madhya Pradesh Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, the UP Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance, 2020, and some changes in the State of Karnataka. The aforementioned codes raise a number of crossings, but the one that is most pertinent to us is the one made by Karnataka, which allowed an increase in extra hours from 75 to 125 hours per quarter. This change is argued to be unconstitutional because it violates article 23 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits forced labour, and it also contradicts the ruling in the People’s Union for Democratic Rights case, at the very least. It says a lot that despite being in existence for decades, the current labour rules that are being unified have not been adequately applied in any state. Not only for employment regulations, but implementation problems are widespread and persistent in many different contexts. Next, let’s talk about the overall lack of legal knowledge among workers and the populace as a whole, which, among other things, promotes employee exploitation. One instance in point is section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, which mandates overtime compensation by the contractor. In practise, this provision is seldom followed, and the issue is made worse by the employees’ lack of knowledge of the law or other relevant matters.
Both of these scenarios, on their own or in combination, highlight the issue of working hours. Certain aspects of its implementation are still unclear, including how the rest days will be structured, what kind of rest days they will be (mandatory or optional), how to choose whether to use them, and how they will accumulate and be redeemable. The legislation can once again provide employers more room for exploitation depending on how they are handled and taking the issue of ignorance into consideration. Indian labourers now put in the most hours at the lowest pay with hardly any free time.
It may be claimed that “people still have the opportunity to’realize’ what they can do in the 3 days they are given” at this point. Even if the sub-rules described above are unclear, the circumstances make it obvious why the realisation is difficult. Then, regardless of the rule, it may be claimed that these settings remain the same. Not all rules, nevertheless, completely disregard both the physical and mental well-being of individuals as defined in the epicurean meaning of health and national/international law. Everything appears to be done about the fact that the switch from 8 to 12 hour workdays seems to have been proposed without any consideration of its effects on a person’s overall well-being, understood in the hedonistic and capability senses, as well as with complete disregard for the law as it currently stands.
The law may have good intentions in this regard, but who is “good” for? The Codes’ supporters as an entire have been silent about how the Codes assist businesses and employers, particularly in terms of ease of doing business. We experienced one of the largest increases in the labour force from 424.4 million to 437.2 million in only one month from March 2022 to April 2022, but at the same time, we also observed a rise in the unemployment rate from 7.57% in March to 7.83% in April. The work hour rule is a detrimental weak link in the labour legislation that is essential to attaining and maintaining the numerous balances.
