The four labour codes of 2019-2020, enacted without tripartite consultation, threaten the hard-won labour rights of unorganised sector workers who constitute over 90% of India's workforce. Critically examine the impact of these codes on informal workers' welfare, occupational safety, and sector-specific protections, and suggest measures to safeguard their interests.

Introduction

India's labour law landscape underwent fundamental transformation with the enactment of four labour codes between 2019 and 2020, covering industrial relations, wages, social security, and occupational health and safety. The Union Government claims these codes consolidate existing labour laws and universalise social security for workers. However, unions and workers' organisations have consistently raised objections, noting that these codes were passed without tripartite consultation at the Indian Labour Conference involving workers, employers, and government representatives. As implementation begins, the codes pose serious dangers particularly to unorganised sector workers, who constitute over 90% of India's workforce and produce 65% of its GDP. The threat to hard-won labour rights demands urgent examination and remedial action.

1. Threats to Occupational Safety and Health Protections

BOCW Act Protections Repealed: The Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, contained approximately 180 rules ensuring worker safety at construction sites. These protections are entirely missing in central rules issued for the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, representing dangerous regression given hazardous labour conditions and high fatality rates in construction.

Web-Based Inspection System: The OSHWC Code replaced existing inspection systems with web-based processes that cannot effectively ensure workplace safety or minimum wage implementation. This violates ILO Convention 81, ratified by India, which mandates effective labour inspection mechanisms.

Occupational Disease Neglect: Unorganised workers contract serious diseases from prolonged manual work exposure across sectors. Silicosis is prevalent in construction, cancer from pesticide use affects agricultural workers, while salt workers face chronic eye, skin, and kidney problems. The OSHWC Code shows no concern for these realities.

ILO Convention 161 Violation: India's neglect of informal workers' occupational health violates ILO Convention 161, which calls for national policy on occupational health services for all workers and mandates identification, treatment, and rehabilitation for occupational diseases.

ESI Exclusion: Since Employees' State Insurance is unavailable to informal workers, they have no state recognition or measures addressing occupational health and safety concerns, leaving them without recourse when workplace injuries or diseases occur.

2. Welfare Boards and Social Security Concerns

Vague Welfare Schemes: Under the Social Security Code, organised workers receive defined social security benefits while informal workers are relegated to vaguely defined "welfare schemes" without guaranteed entitlements or enforceable rights.

Cess Abolition Impact: Various cesses providing welfare funds for workers in beedi, salt, mining, and other sectors were abolished under GST reforms without replacement mechanisms. This eliminates guaranteed funds raised from employers or government for informal sector worker welfare.

Single Welfare Board Inadequacy: The SS Code establishes one welfare board for all unorganised workers without recognising the diverse sectors where informal workers operate, except construction and gig work. This one-size-fits-all approach cannot address sector-specific welfare needs.

Centralised Fund Takeover Risk: The centralised e-Shram registration system creates possibilities for central government takeover of accrued funds raised for workers' welfare, estimated at approximately ₹1 lakh crore, potentially diverting resources from their intended beneficiaries.

State Welfare Board Dissolution Threat: In Tamil Nadu, the SS Code threatens dissolution of all 39 existing sector-specific welfare boards without saving clauses. These boards provide old age pensions, maternity assistance, and educational assistance for workers' children that would be lost.

3. State-Level Protections and Way Forward

Tamil Nadu's Welfare Architecture: Tamil Nadu has strong worker welfare infrastructure under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Act, 1982, built through decades of worker and union advocacy. Approximately three crore informal workers exist in the state, with two crore registered across various welfare boards.

Contrasting State Responses: Some states including Andhra Pradesh have closed welfare boards responding to the Codes. However, Kerala has refused to implement the codes and notify rules, protecting existing state-level welfare infrastructure as a model for other states.

Saving Clauses Requirement: States must push for saving clauses protecting existing state-level welfare boards and legislation. Without explicit protections, decades of progressive state-level labour welfare architecture faces dismantlement.

Tripartite Consultation Revival: The Indian Labour Conference must be convened for genuine tripartite consultation on code implementation. Worker perspectives excluded during enactment must inform implementation rules to address legitimate concerns.

Sector-Specific Recognition: Rather than consolidating all informal workers under single frameworks, codes must recognise sector-specific realities requiring tailored protections, registration mechanisms, and welfare provisions addressing diverse occupational hazards and working conditions.

Conclusion

The labour codes of 2019-2020 represent consolidation in name but fragmentation in effect, threatening hard-won protections for over 90% of India's workforce. The repeal of sector-specific laws like the BOCW Act, introduction of ineffective web-based inspection, abolition of welfare cesses, and dissolution of state-level welfare boards collectively endanger informal workers' safety, health, and welfare. States like Tamil Nadu must protect their welfare boards and refuse implementation without adequate saving clauses, following Kerala's example. The myth of universalisation must give way to genuine recognition that unorganised workers deserve comprehensive protections addressing their diverse occupational realities. India's compliance with ratified ILO conventions and constitutional guarantees of dignified labour conditions demands nothing less than fundamental reconsideration of these codes' impact on the most vulnerable sections of the workforce.