Ease of Compliance - Never at the Cost of Workers’ Rights

Before joining the Government of India, did you always see yourself building a career in public service and labour administration, or did that path emerge over time?

I was like any other student at Delhi University. Initially, I intended to pursue a career in academics. I completed my Honours and Master’s in Commerce from the Delhi School of Economics, followed by an LLB, an LLM, and a PhD. My original plan was to remain in academia.

A few years later, however, I decided to appear for the UPSC examination. I cleared it, joined the Government of India, and served for nearly 33 years. It was an immensely satisfying career, and I eventually became the Chief Labour Commissioner of the Government of India.

Even while in government, I remained closely associated with academics. For four years, I was a full-time faculty member at the VV Giri National Labour Institute, the Ministry of Labour and Employment’s staff college. We conducted research and training programmes for government officers, trade union leaders, employers, senior managers, university faculty members, and members of the judiciary.

Beyond those four years, I regularly taught as guest faculty at government staff colleges that train IAS and other civil service officers, judicial academies run by various High Courts to train judicial officers and judges, and training institutes of public sector enterprises.

Throughout my government service, I also conducted faculty development programmes for university professors, delivered sessions for postgraduate students at business and law schools, and taught in management development programmes for senior HR professionals. Alongside my responsibilities as a civil servant, I continued to pursue my passion for teaching.

From 1994 to 2013 — with a break during 2002-03 — I also taught labour laws for the postgraduate diploma programme at the Indian Law Institute on a part-time basis. The institute functions under the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Supreme Court, and I taught there regularly for nearly two decades.

How old were you when you joined the Government of India?

I received my first teaching assignment within a fortnight of completing my master’s degree, but it was only an ad hoc position, not a regular university appointment. I joined the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, at the age of 27.

Labour law is often taught through statutes and regulations. Was there a particular experience that fundamentally shaped the way you understood it in practice?

Yes. At the Indian Law Institute, my first research project was on child labour. As I worked on it, I saw first-hand how children were being exploited and how their young age was being taken advantage of. It was deeply disturbing. Children as young as ten were working 14-hour days as domestic workers, in hotels, tea stalls, dhabas and automobile workshops. That experience made me realise I wanted to join the administration so I could contribute in a meaningful way.

Later, I was part of the team that drafted the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, along with the Rules framed under it. I wanted to ensure the legislation genuinely addressed workers’ problems. I did not draft that law sitting in my office. On weekends, I visited construction sites, spoke directly to workers about their working conditions, health and safety, and the way they were being compensated — their low wages, and all. My understanding came from those conversations — not from my office.

That understanding shaped the legislation. Even the 1998 Rules under the Act contain more than 200 provisions devoted to the health and safety of construction workers.

I also worked on proposed amendments to the law relating to inter-state migrant workers. To understand their concerns, I travelled on four long-distance trains in general unreserved compartments, sitting alongside workers, talking with them and sharing meals. I even wore a kurta-pyjama and rubber slippers so they would feel comfortable speaking openly with me.

Although the proposals I developed from those journeys were never enacted for various reasons, they reinforced an important lesson: we cannot solve people’s problems through legislation unless we first understand those problems and reflect them in the law.

Another experience involved maternity benefits. I attended a conference promoting breastfeeding, where I learned how critical a mother’s milk is for a child’s health during the first six months. At that time, however, the Maternity Benefit Act provided only 84 days of leave. I spent the next three years engaging with the government, employers and industry to build support for extending maternity leave from 84 days to six months. The law was eventually amended in 2017.

The same approach guided the drafting of the Labour Codes. Before we began drafting — and throughout the process — I held extensive discussions with employers, trade unions, union leaders and industry representatives to understand the issues they faced and what they expected from the law. Even after the drafts were prepared, we held tripartite consultations as well as discussions with the Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Having worked with employers, trade unions, workers and policymakers throughout your career, what do you believe is the real cause of industrial conflict in India?

When policymakers make laws, they’re also shaping public policy. The first step is to understand the genuine concerns of every stakeholder. Workers are one stakeholder, but employers and management have legitimate concerns too, and those need to be addressed as well.

When I began engaging more closely with industry around 2010, one issue came up repeatedly: the growing compliance burden. Employers spoke about the complexity of compliance, the need for greater flexibility in manpower planning, and broader industrial relations issues. My response was always the same: we would work to improve ease of compliance and address employers’ concerns, but never at the cost of workers’ rights. That balance is delicate, but it must be maintained.

You can see this reflected in the reforms. Under the earlier framework, employers had to maintain 88 or 89 registers across eight or nine different labour laws. We reduced that to eight registers. Likewise, 39 separate returns were consolidated into a single return. None of this diluted workers’ rights; if anything, digitisation made compliance more transparent.

We also addressed long-standing issues around licences and registrations. Earlier, authorities often took far too long to issue licences. Today, the entire process is online, with defined timelines for government-to-business and business-to-government transactions. If an employer has fulfilled all the requirements and the authority still fails to act within the prescribed period, the licence is deemed approved and automatically generated by the system. Either the authority issues the licence, identifies any deficiencies, or the system generates it after the deadline. That is good governance. There is no need to visit a government office — you apply online and receive either your licence or a clear query requiring action.

Another issue was the trust deficit between government and business. There was a tendency to rely on regulation rather than trust. We therefore moved towards self-registration. Even unorganised-sector workers were brought onto a self-registration system. More than 32 crore unorganised workers have been registered through this system.

The same approach now extends to unorganised, gig and platform workers. If people are asked to visit government offices with certificates, affidavits and multiple documents, they lose wages, incur expenses and often become discouraged from registering altogether. A self-registration system reduces those barriers and builds trust. There is no reason for the system to default to suspicion.

Do you believe any provision in the Labour Codes has the potential to fundamentally transform India’s labour ecosystem?

This is what we call labour reform, and reform happens in stages: first reform, then perform, and finally transform. The Codes have come into effect only recently, and some of the rules are still being framed. Until then, the earlier rules continue to apply. So, we should wait before drawing firm conclusions about the extent of that transformation.

Codification of the labour law was only one objective of the Labour Codes. The others were rationalisation and simplification. Rationalisation means rewriting the law to address the contemporary concerns of all stakeholders — employers, employees and regulators.

Many of the earlier labour laws were enacted 70 to 100 years ago. While they served their purpose at the time, the world of work has changed considerably. New challenges have emerged, some older provisions have become outdated, and in certain cases entire laws have lost their relevance. The Labour Codes were drafted with this changing landscape in mind. In fact, 12 labour laws were repealed, along with certain provisions of others.

All four Codes contain several significant reforms. For example, the right to minimum wages, timely payment of wages without unauthorised deductions, and overtime pay for extra hours or work on rest days has been extended to every employee across every establishment. Earlier, these protections applied only to specific categories of workers and designated establishments.

Similarly, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code extends workplace safety and welfare provisions across establishments and industries, whereas the earlier framework covered only a limited range of workplaces.

I am confident that these Codes will transform the labour ecosystem by extending rights relating to wages, safe, healthy and decent working conditions, and social security to every employee — including unorganised, gig and platform workers — across all sectors.

If reform is followed by effective implementation, transformation will follow. That will improve both the ease of doing business and the ease of living for workers. But we still need time to see how that transformation unfolds.

What advice would you give young HR professionals entering the workforce who understand labour law in theory but have limited exposure to workplace realities?

There are two things I’d like to emphasise.

First, you need to be academically sound. You must have a thorough understanding of what the provisions of the law actually say. But equally important is understanding both the text and the context of the law. The text is what is written, what is in print; the context is why the law exists and why it was changed. In other words, understand both the letter and the spirit of the law — the underlying philosophy, jurisprudence and objective behind the change. Build that depth of knowledge.

Second, once you enter the corporate world, you need to know how to apply that knowledge. It’s about both interpretation and implementation. Interpretation means arriving at the correct meaning by understanding both the text and the spirit of the law. Only then can you ensure genuine compliance.

This learning does not end in the classroom. Once you’re in the profession, it has to continue throughout your career. Read case law regularly and stay updated on how the Supreme Court and High Courts interpret labour legislation. Subscribe to labour law journals and make time to read them. Laws are constantly evolving. While legislatures enact laws, courts continue to shape them through interpretation. To practise labour law effectively, you must remain a lifelong student of it.

Finally, you must be able to translate knowledge into practice. Understand your organisation’s HR policies and practices, identify where they fall short of current legal requirements, and work towards aligning them with the law. That is an ongoing process.

You’ve worked closely with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and on international labour policy, including in Afghanistan. How does India’s approach to labour policymaking compare with global best practices?

When we were drafting the Labour Codes between 2014 and 2017, the International Labour Organisation was undertaking a similar exercise through its Standards Review Mechanism (SRM), a tripartite body reviewing international labour standards, including conventions, recommendations and protocols.

I was a member of that forum, representing India alongside representatives of governments, employers and workers from other ILO member countries. Through the SRM, other ILO forums and conferences in Geneva, programmes at the International Training Centre of the ILO in Turin, and international workshops in cities such as Paris, Lisbon and Madrid, I had the opportunity to study labour policies and best practices from around the world. I also chaired some of these international meetings.

Those experiences gave me valuable insights into how labour laws had evolved across different jurisdictions and what lessons India could draw from them. Wherever feasible, I tried to incorporate those good practices into the Labour Codes.

Even where India has not formally ratified certain ILO conventions, we sought to incorporate their underlying philosophy wherever it was appropriate and practical for the Indian context. At every stage, we carefully assessed whether an international practice was workable within our own legal and economic environment.

As a result, I believe our new Labour Codes reflect several important international best practices while remaining grounded in Indian realities. That was one of the guiding principles behind their drafting.

Labour law has historically evolved in response to industrialisation, factories, trade unions, contract labour and social security. As AI reshapes the workplace and algorithms increasingly influence decision-making, what should be the next big question for labour policy?

Using technology to improve worker safety is a positive development. What it should not do is become a tool for unnecessarily controlling workers. If technology simply identifies safety lapses or helps ensure compliance with safety standards, I see that as a constructive use of AI — not as a form of control.

AI is also being used in recruitment to screen résumés and conduct preliminary interviews. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that either. It is simply another tool in the selection process.

One area that did concern me was the fare-calculation model used by ride-hailing platforms such as Uber and Ola. Some of these used an algorithm to decide the fare, and earlier, drivers often had no visibility into how a fare was divided between themselves and the aggregator. If a passenger paid `400 for a trip, the driver frequently had no idea what share they would actually receive. That lack of transparency was troubling, particularly when I spoke to the drivers.

My understanding is that the system has since become more transparent, with many platforms now charging a fixed daily app-usage fee instead. When I discussed the issue with the aggregators, it was clear that they had also recognised the need for greater transparency.

So, from my perspective, the key issue is not AI itself but how it is used. Where technology improves health, safety or operational efficiency without undermining transparency or fairness, I see it as a positive development rather than a mechanism of control.

With the rise of outsourcing, contract labour and platform work, how do you see the role of trade unions evolving in India?

If you read the Labour Codes closely, you’ll find that we’re expecting a much larger role for trade unions — particularly in ensuring compliance. For example, in cases of non-payment or short payment of wages or other dues, claims can be filed not only by the employee but also by the trade union or the inspector. Trade unions will therefore play an important role in ensuring workers are not exploited.

The Codes also introduce two important mechanisms. The first is the Grievance Redressal Committee — a bipartite forum in which trade unions represent workers and participate directly in resolving grievances. Earlier, grievance redressal was handled solely by employers and management, with no formal role for workers’ representatives. Now it is a joint forum with equal representation from employers and workers through their trade unions, giving unions a statutory role in the process.

The second is the recognition of a negotiating trade union or the constitution of a negotiating council under Section 14 of the Industrial Relations Code. Under the Central Rules, we’ve identified ten specific matters on which trade unions play an important role in negotiation with the employer.  They also play a significant part in finalising and certifying standing orders and in matters relating to worker welfare.

We also expect trade unions to play a much greater role in extending social security to unorganised-sector workers by helping ensure that government scheme benefits actually reach those they are intended for.

Overall, the Labour Codes place high expectations on trade unions. They recognise trade unions as key stakeholders and entrust them with greater responsibility. I believe this will strengthen and positively shape the future of the trade union movement in India.

Many of the mobilising functions once performed by trade unions now seem to play out on social media. Do you see digital platforms assuming a larger role in representing workers?

Social media has undoubtedly created far greater awareness. I did not follow it very closely earlier, but I’ve come to appreciate how much awareness it has generated around the Labour Codes, new labour laws and the rights they provide. It will certainly continue to play an important role in informing workers, and that is a positive development.

However, social media cannot replace trade unions. Trade unions do far more than create awareness — they represent workers. They raise grievances, pursue cases of non-compliance with the appropriate authorities, and continue working on behalf of workers until those issues are resolved or reach a logical conclusion.