DEBUNKING THE PRESS RELEASE ON LABOUR CODES!

On 21st November, 2025, the Modi government has brought into force the 4 labour codes - The Code on Wages, the Code on Industrial Relations, The Code on Occupation, Safety and Health and The Code on Social Security, without prior intimation to the public, or trade unions which represent hundreds of thousands of working people across the country.

The passage of the 4 codes marks a significant shift in labour relations, favouring capital, and signifies the burial of the gains of working class struggle from the late century and almost 75 years of labour jurisprudence actively fought for and influenced by working people.

By bringing in these 4 codes, at one stroke the government has excluded almost half of the workers from the protection of the law, by making these laws applicable only for establishments of certain size.

As expected, most mainstream media have hailed the Labour codes by uncritically parroting the government’s official stance in its press note of the codes’ being a boon to working people.

Nothing could be further away from the truth. The Press Information Bureau of the Government of India put out a press release shamefully indulging in wilful misrepresentations to suggest that the major goal of the labour reforms was “social justice”, which the media rather than question, has adopted hook, line and sinker. 

Here, we expose the myths in the Press Release and reveal how these Labour Codes threaten workers’ rights and livelihoods. 

As detailed below, the Codes violate core constitutional values, exclude vast sections of workers from the protection of labour laws, and actively promote insecure and precarious forms of employment, thereby deepening widespread precarity and contributing to increased social and economic inequality. They also fall short of the standards mandated by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

1. FORMALIZATION OF EMPLOYMENT

MYTH: Mandatory appointment letters to all workers.

REALITY: The Codes do not formalize employment, instead, they informalize existing formal jobs, pushing workers into a broader regime of insecure and precarious employment.

Employment does not magically transform from informal to formal by merely issuing an appointment letter. A central tenet of formal employment is ‘security of employment’ - which the Codes decimate by legalising ‘fixed term employment’ and expanding ‘contract labour’. 

As a consequence, not only do establishments now have free reign to increase contractualised labour in their establishments but establishments also have the power to terminate workers at will. 

Appointment letters do not guarantee security for workers, instead, they allow employers to impose unilateral and often illegal terms, including arbitrary termination.

Real protections come through Standing Orders, which are drafted with the participation of both management and workers. Standing Order are rules that govern the conditions of service of workers which are to be made in consultation with the workmen, and which ensure that the employer cannot take arbitrary action. These Standing Orders are governed by the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act 1946, which stands repealed by the IR Code.

However, the Industrial Relations Code weakens this protection by raising the threshold for mandatory Standing Orders as stated above, thereby denying workers in medium and small sized establishments this crucial safeguard.

Further, while the OSHW Code claims to ensure the issuance of appointment letters, it simultaneously narrows the scope of the law itself, by increasing the threshold of applicability as stated above. This drastic change excludes a vast number of factories, rendering the supposed protections meaningless for most workers.

2. A PROTECTED WORKFORCE

MYTH: The Labour Codes are “building a workforce that is protected”.

REALITY: The Labour Codes do not build a workforce that is protected. They, in fact, rob the workers of existing rights and push workers outside the protection of the law.

The design of the Labour Codes is fundamentally exclusionary - more workers are pushed out of the protection of the law, than brought in.

A. Factories Act Thresholds: Under the OSHWC Code, which replaces the Factories Act, the threshold for applicability has been doubled.

• Factories using power now need 20 workers (instead of 10) to come under the law.
• Factories not using power now need 40 workers (instead of 20).

This single change wipes out legal protections for a massive section of the workforce. As per the Annual Survey of Industries, 2017–18, over 47% of all registered factories employ fewer than 20 workers. This means nearly half of India’s registered factories will no longer be covered by core safety, health, and welfare provisions.

B. Industrial Relations Thresholds: Similarly, under the Industrial Relations Code:

• The requirement for standing orders, the document that defines workers’ rights and service conditions, has been raised from 100 workers (under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1956) to 300 workers (Section 28 of the IR Code).
• Protections against lay-off, retrenchment, and closure, which earlier applied to establishments with 100 workers (Section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) now apply only to units with 300 workers (Section 77 of the IR Code).

C. Contract Labour Thresholds: Further, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, workers in establishments with 20 or more employees were protected. The OSHW Code raises this threshold to 50, instantly excluding lakhs of workplaces and taking away from workers basic rights, including timely payment of wages, provision of essential amenities, and the liability of the principal employer.

This means that a large number of establishments will now fall completely outside the scope of the law, robbing lakhs of workers of the protections they currently have. By erasing existing rights, the Codes push lakhs of workers into a legal no-man’s land, where workers are thrown outside the law without safeguards and without remedy.

For instance, workers in factories with less than 20 workers had the right to safety measures, provisions of latrines, toilets, etc., which they now stand outside of and can’t claim as a right. Similarly workers employed as contract labour where there are less than 50 workers cannot seek that the principal employer must make the payment of wages, when the contractor doesn’t make the payment, a right that they previously had.

3. EMPOWERING WORKERS

MYTH: The Labour Codes “empower Workers”.

REALITY: Far from empowering workers, the Codes directly attack their fundamental rights to association, collective action, and bargaining, which are essential to protecting workers’ interests. The right to strike is a cornerstone of collective bargaining and the primary weapon workers have to defend wages, working conditions, and job security. The Codes systematically undermine this tool.

It must be remembered that workers have managed the achieve any right today only by virtue of their right to strike. Pourakarmikas were made permanent after going on a historic strike. Similarly wage conditions in public sector undertakings were improved only because they were able to strike.

A. Strike Notice: Under the 1947 Act, prior notice of strike was required only for public utility services. The new Codes extend this requirement to all industries, mandating 14 days’ advance notice for any strike (Section 62 of the IR Code). This means that even in cases of blatant violations, unsafe conditions, or urgent disputes, workers are forced to wait two weeks before they can act, reducing their ability to respond effectively and weakening their negotiating power. 

B. Penalties: Strikes deemed “illegal” now carry draconian penalties. Workers can face up to one month imprisonment and fines ranging from Rs.1,000 to Rs.10,000, which may equal or exceed a worker’s monthly wages. Those who incite, instigate, or fund “‘illegal” strikes face fines of Rs.10,000 to Rs.50,000 (Section 86 of the IR Code). These penalties criminalize collective action, intimidate workers, and discourage even legitimate attempts to defend rights, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation.

C. Union Registration: The Codes also grant unprecedented powers to the Registrar of Trade Unions to withdraw or cancel a union’s registration on mere “information received” of alleged contraventions (Section 9 of the IR Code). This broad power to take action even with no proof, with no inquiry will ensure that trade unions become weak and prevent workers from asking for their rights. Such broad and undefined powers open the door to arbitrary attacks on trade unions, weakening the institutions that safeguard workers’ interests.

4. SOCIAL SECURITY

MYTH: Under Code on Social Security, 2020 all workers including gig & platform workers to get social security coverage.

REALITY: The Codes do not increase social security benefits, they in fact reduce and weaken them.

The claim that all workers including gig and platform workers will receive social security coverage such as PF, ESIC, insurance and other benefits is misleading. In fact gig and platform workers are not ensured ESI and instead the only benefit gig and platform workers receive is the right to be registered. No social security provisions are promised to them as a right. Instead all the codes do is promise to roll out schemes with benefits - without explicating the content of the benefits or the timeline for their rollout.

The rights that already existed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not strengthened, they are diluted. Workers were already entitled to ESI and PF as a matter of statutory right. The Code adds nothing new, it only weakens existing protections.

Even today, only workers in establishments with 10 or more workers are covered under ESI, and those in establishments with 20 or more workers under EPF. The Code retains these exclusions, thereby leaving a vast share of India’s workforce outside mandatory coverage.

Instead of ensuring universal protection, the Code creates two unequal classes of workers:

1. Organised-sector workers, who will continue to receive benefits they already had, and,
2.  “Unorganised” workers, who are denied any guaranteed right and are left to depend on whatever discretionary schemes the government may or may not introduce in future.
3. The Codes shift the responsibility for social security from the employer and the government, as required under existing law, onto the workers themselves. Under the ESI Act and EPF Act, employers are mandatorily required to register all their employees. While the Codes retain this requirement for workers in the organized sector, they create a separate and weaker system for unorganized, gig, and platform workers, placing the burden on these workers to register themselves in order to access their rights and benefits.
4. Informal workers, who form more than 93% of India’s workforce, are thus left with no enforceable social security rights. The government speaks of future schemes, without any commitment to timelines, content, or guaranteed entitlement. This is not social security, it is uncertainty and discrimination being solidified

5. MINIMUM WAGES

MYTH: Under the Code on Wages, 2019, all workers to receive a statutory right minimum wage payment.

REALITY: The Codes do not guarantee minimum wages, they actively drive wages down and push workers further into poverty. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 guaranteed minimum wages, and the Code waters down the law.

The Code introduces the concept of ‘Floor Wage’, without properly defining its true meaning or content. Though the Code states that the Floor Wage cannot be lower than the Minimum Wage, in reality the Floor Wages will bring down the level of minimum wages. Incidentally the present floor wages fixed by the Modi government is Rs.178/ per day whereas the minimum wages in Karnataka is around Rs.707/- to Rs.723/-.

The formula for Minimum Wage calculation in the Codes is in fact a much diminished version of the formula to calculate Minimum Wage sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Reptakos Brett judgment. The formula in the Codes reduces the rent component - which is the central and most significant expense borne by workers - to a mere 10% of the food and clothing component, which is unscientific, has no relation to real needs and would bring down the minimum wages.

A comparison between the minimum wages proposed in Karnataka and the wage- fixation formula under the Wage Code clearly demonstrates just how sharply the Code drags wages downward. 

Component	As per actual rate	As per Wage Code
Food	8947.46	8947.46
Clothing	629.83	629.83
Housing	5660.00	957.76
Additional 45%	12,425.85	8619.53
Total	27,613.00	19,154.55

Thus, it is seen that the minimum wages proposed by the Wage Code is not as per costs and would bring the wages down substantially.

6. SAFETY FOR WORKERS

MYTH: That employers must provide workers above the age of 40 years with a free annual health check-up.

REALITY: The Codes don’t ensure safety for workers they weaken existing safeguards and make workplaces more unsafe. 

The OSH Code at Section 6(c) only provides that the employers must provide workers such annual health examination to such employees of such age or such class of employees of establishments or such class of establishments, as may be prescribed. 

The Factories Act, 1948 at Section 41C provides for medical examination of workers in hazardous factories annually. 

The specific and detailed requirements of law to ensure real safety of workers in the Factories Act, 1948 have been largely done away with. The Factories Act stipulates the constitution of a bi-partite safety committee in every factory in which hazardous processes or substances are used. Section 22 of the OSH Code leaves it to the States to constitute such committees through notification process.

It must be repeated: the OSH Code excludes a vast number of establishments, and the workers within them, by raising the threshold of coverage. When an entire factory is pushed outside the scope of the law, what possible meaning can any promised “protection” have?

A right that does not apply to you is not a right at all.

Safety for workers can only be guaranteed through a better and more stringent system of inspection, which the Codes do not guarantee. Instead, they impose penalties on workers for violation of safety rules rather than fortifying the liability of employers.

7. TIMELY PAYMENT OF WAGES

MYTH: That for the first time there will be timely payment of wages.

REALITY: Timely payment of wages is not new. It has been mandated since 1936 under the Payment of Wages Act, which under Section 7 mandates that wages be paid by the 7th of every month.

8. WOMEN WORKFORCE

MYTH: Improvement in women workforce participation and permitting women for night shift.

REALITY: The Codes don’t improve conditions for women. They worsen it and codify discrimination. 

This so-called “permission” for women to work at night is not freedom for women, it is freedom for employers. The earlier restriction was a prohibition on employers from requiring women to work at night, recognising the unequal power dynamics and serious risks involved. By removing this restriction, the Codes shift the balance entirely in favour of employers.

What is framed as choice will, in reality, become compulsion: women who refuse night shifts risk losing employment or promotions. Night shift work is well-documented as hazardous, disrupting sleep cycles, increasing risks to physical and mental health, and exposing workers to enhanced safety risks both during work and during travel.

Instead of restricting night shifts for all workers, the Codes empowers employers to push women into them.

9. REDUCTION IN COMPLIANCE BURDEN

MYTH: Reduction in Compliance Burden

REALITY: Compliance is not a “burden” — it is the backbone of ensuring the rights of workers. Treating compliance as a burden exposes the real intention: lack of intention to enforce workers’ rights at all. 

When compliance is weakened - as has been done in the Code - enforcement collapses, and when enforcement collapses, workers are left unprotected and employers are left unchecked. In the recent past India has seen several industrial accidents that have occurred because of negligence on the part of the employer. With less inspections, this will only increase. By weakening the inspector’s powers and removing surprise checks, the Codes ensure that even the existing laws will not be enforced.

10. SECTORAL IMPACT: KEY SECTORS? KEY LIES.

Fixed-Term Employees (FTE)

Fixed Term Employment is a new form of employment introduced and promoted by the Codes, and it effectively codifies insecure and precarious work. Although described as employment for a specific duration, in practice employers engage workers on successive “fixed terms,” often stretching over many years. For example, a worker who has served for ten years may be issued a series of one-year fixed-term contracts. 

This system functions as a subterfuge to deny workers the rights and protections that attach to regular, permanent employment. The argument that equal benefits are granted is misleading. By bringing in fixed term employment, the codes effectively formalise insecurity. Introduction of fixed-term employment is a backdoor tactic to strip workers of real rights and job security. 

Allowing employers terminate at will, gives free reign to the employer to terminate any workers who chooses to stand up to the employer or try to organise workers, violating workers right to freedom of association. 

Calling one-year gratuity for fixed-term workers a “benefit” is like cutting off a worker’s leg and then giving them a stick. With the introduction of fixed-term employment, job security is stripped away and employers are effectively given the freedom to terminate workers at will. Gratuity cannot in any way compensate for the loss of stable, secure employment, and such insecurity is being institutionalized into the Codes.

Gig & Platform Workers

MYTH: That the Codes define Gig & Platform Workers and provide benefits for them. 

REALITY: Gig and platform workers are denied their rights. They have been kept out of the definition of workers and instead have been identified separately. 

Gig and platform workers, who are in every real sense workmen, are deliberately excluded from being recognised as such under the Codes. By keeping them outside the definition of “workmen” the Codes deny them the bundle of rights and protections that ordinarily follow from such recognition, including a basic level of job security. This exclusion strips them of an entire ecosystem of protections that every other workman is entitled to: job security, wage security and social security. 

Instead they are separated out and the only benefit gig and platform workers receive is the right to be registered. No social security provisions are also promised to them as a right. Instead all the codes do is promise to roll out schemes with benefits - without explicating the content of the benefits or the timeline for their rollout. 

This approach treats a rapidly growing segment of the workforce as second class workers, essential enough to keep the economy running, but not important enough to be given rights, security, or dignity.

Contract Workers

MYTH: That fixed term employees will increase employability, social security and legal protection. Fixed-term employees will become eligible for gratuity after one year of continuous service. Principal employer will provide health benefits and social security benefits to contract workers.

REALITY: Contract Labour System, that is nothing but modern day slavery is promoted by the Codes. Unions have been demanding that precarious employment form such as contract labour, fixed term employment, etc. be removed and these worker be made permanent. 

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Jaggo vs Union of India noted that “Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.” 

However, the Code instead of ensuring fair and secure employment only promotes precarious employment. The introduction of Fixed-Term Employment is nothing but a backdoor strategy to strip workers of real rights and real job security. It offers no benefits to workers and its only purpose is to give employers the freedom to hire and fire whenever they please. Far from expanding protections, it formalises insecurity. 

Contract workers, too, receive no relief under the Codes. Instead of dismantling the exploitative contract labour system, the Codes seek to institutionalise and expand it. The contract labour system has been recognised as a modern form of bonded labour, and the Codes openly promote it. 

The Contract Labour Act, 1970 prohibited the contracting out of core work, and this is carried into the OSHW Code in principle. However, the OSHW Code significantly narrows the definition of “core work,” thereby excluding many categories of work that were previously protected. By removing key functions from the scope of core work, the Code effectively consigns large sections of workers to a permanent state of contract labour, stripping them of the security and protections that should accompany core work. 

Under Section 2(p) of the OSHW, certain essential services including: (i) sanitation works, (ii) watch and ward services; (iii) canteen and catering services; (iv) loading and unloading operations; (v) running of hospitals, educational and training Institutions, guest houses, clubs; (vi) courier services; (vii) civil and other constructional works; (viii) gardening and maintenance of lawns; (ix) housekeeping and laundry services; (x) transport services including, ambulance services are explicitly excluded from being considered “essential or necessary” activities and these workers are effectively forced into a permanent state of contract employment. 

This exclusion disproportionately impacts women and Dalit workers who perform these roles. By pushing these essential jobs permanently into the contract system, the Codes entrench caste-based labour divisions and condemn workers to lifelong precarity. The Codes thus push workers deeper into the contract system, a system of modern-day slavery, while giving employers absolute freedom and workers no security. 

Additionally, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applied to establishments with more than 20 workers. The OSH Code now raises this threshold to 50 workers, effectively excluding lakhs of workplaces and removing even basic protections like timely payment of wages and access to statutory benefits. This is a complete erasure of rights.

Women Rights

MYTH: Women rights are protected by prohibiting gender discrimination and ensuring equal pay for equal work and night shifts for women.

REALITY: The Codes trample women’s rights and embed discrimination into law. Gender equality is not something newly created by the Codes, it has been constitutionally mandated since 1950 that guarantees equality. 

Equal remuneration for men and women was legally guaranteed in 1976 under the Equal Remuneration Act, a law that the Code on Wages, 2019 has now repealed. 

Instead of strengthening these protections, the new Codes dilute them. The Codes weaken the principle of equal pay for equal work by allowing
discrimination. Under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, employers were expressly prohibited from paying men and women differently for the same work. 

However, the Code on Wages weakens this protection by altering the definition of “wages” and excluding several components from it. Section 2(y) of the Code on Wages excludes the following from the definition of “wages”:

• any bonus payable,
• the value of house accommodation or utilities and amenities,
• conveyance allowance or any special allowance,
• house rent allowance (HRA),
• commission payable to the employee,
• any other special allowance

By excluding these components, the Code allows employers to create wage structures where the “basic wage” may appear equal, but the excluded components, which often constitute a substantial portion of take-home pay, can vary significantly between men and women. 

For instance, suppose a man and a woman perform the same job and both receive a basic wage of Rs. 12,000 per month. Under the Code on Wages, the employer can do the following:

• Pay the male worker Rs.12,000 basic + Rs.4,000 HRA + Rs.2,000 special allowance.
• Pay the female worker Rs.12,000 basic + Rs.1,000 HRA + no special allowance.

Under the Code on Wages, their “wages” (as narrowly defined) are deemed equal, however, as seen above, in reality their actual earnings differ significantly. This re-definition not only legitimizes wage discrimination but also threatens maternity benefits, as these too will be calculated on the basis of a narrowed and diluted concept of “wages,” reducing the real benefits available to women workers.

Crèche Facilities: The Codes also dilute the provision of creche facilities. A number of sectoral laws had strong, detailed, enforceable mandates for crèche facilities — including standards for ventilation, sanitation, size, and the requirement that they be managed by a trained woman. These protections ensured that women could work with dignity, and that children had a safe and healthy environment.

Section 67 of the Social Security Code technically “retains” the crèche requirement, but the sector-wise mandates have been removed, producing serious consequences:

• Only “establishments” are now covered.
• Earlier, under the BOCW Act, any place with 50 workers was covered. Construction workers will now lose this right entirely.
• Factories with 30 women workers but fewer than 50 total workers are now excluded, leaving thousands of women without access to crèche facilities.

Fundamental statutory requirements like ventilation, sanitation, proper accommodation, and trained staff have been erased from the law, leaving quality entirely to the discretion of employers.

Representation: The Codes fail to ensure meaningful representation of women in statutory bodies. Instead of proportional representation that reflects the actual work- force, the Codes introduce mere tokenism. For example, the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board, which may have up to 16 members, requires only “at least one woman.” The same token rule applies to the Social Security Code’s welfare boards. Thus, far from ensuring equal rights to women, it institutionalized discrimination.

Youth

MYTH: That the Codes empower youth by guaranteeing minimum wage for all, ensuring appointment letters, promoting social security, prohibiting exploitation, etc.

REALITY: The youth, the present and the future workers, face betrayal on an unprecedented scale. These Codes are a trap, pushing them into precarious and insecure work. 

None of the claims made are new rights, and in fact as stated above the existing rights of workers have been taken away, or workers put out of protection entirely. There is no special provision for youth. Appointment letter itself cannot promote formal employment when the new codes themself protects ad hoc employment in the name of Fixed Term Employment. 

Payment of wages during leave was mandatory even before the Codes and this cannot be touted as an achievement. Floor wages are even below minimum wages, and the Codes will push wages down further, as revealed from the rules. 

For the youth, the Codes are especially dangerous. They lock an entire generation into a future of insecure, precarious employment, without fair wages, and without any protections. The Codes make insecurity the default by weakening every right, young workers require and that the Constitution mandates.

MSME Workers

MYTH: All MSME workers covered under the Social Security Code, 2020, eligibility based on employee count. Minimum wage guaranteed for all workers. Workers will have access to facilities such as canteens, drinking water, and rest areas. Provisions for standard working hours, double overtime wages, and paid leave. Timely wage payment ensured.

REALITY: MSME workers bear the brunt of the Codes, being pushed out of the protection of the law. MSME workers were already covered under existing labour laws. Their ESI and PF coverage has been in place and cannot be projected as a new achievement.

In reality, MSME workers are among the worst affected under the new Codes, as the threshold for applicability has been significantly increased. Under the OSHW Code, coverage now extends only to factories with 40 workers (without power) or 20 workers (with power). This shift excludes a vast number of MSMEs, leaving lakhs of workers without even the most basic statutory protections, including essential amenities such as drinking water.

The claim of “standard working hours” is utterly false and intentionally deceptive. Section 51 of the Factories Act, 1948 clearly restricts adult workers to a maximum of 48 hours per week, and Section 54 caps daily working hours at 9. The OSHW Code dismantles these clear safeguards.

Even though Section 25(a) nominally states an 8-hour workday, Section 25(b) immediately opens the door for bypassing it by allowing the “appropriate Government” to determine the spread-over of working hours.

Similarly, Section 59(1) of the Factories Act provides overtime at twice the ordinary wage for work beyond nine hours a day or forty-eight hours a week. The OSHW Code deletes these specific limits and simply states that overtime applies for work and the serious risks associated with hazardous work. These restrictions protected women from being forced into unsafe, exploitative conditions. By removing these safeguards, the Code effectively hands employers the freedom to assign women to dangerous shifts and hazardous environments.

This so-called “permission” for women to work in hazardous work is not freedom for women, it is freedom for employers. The earlier restriction was a prohibition on employers from requiring women to work in hazardous employment, recognising the unequal power dynamics and serious risks involved. By removing this restriction, the Codes shift the balance entirely in favour of employers. What is framed as choice will, in reality, become compulsion: women who refuse night shifts risk losing employment, shifts, or promotions.

Textile Workers

MYTH: All Migrant Workers to get Equal wages, welfare benefits and PDS portability benefits. Provision for double wages for workers for overtime work.

REALITY: The claims are deeply misleading, and every so-called “benefit” already existed and in fact the new Codes actually roll back workers’ rights rather than strengthen them. Equal pay for equal work is not a new provision. The claim of “double wages” for overtime is nothing new, and in fact as stated above, by allowing the Government to fix hours of work, overtime hours has also been made dependant on the Government.

IT and ITes Workers

MYTH: Release of Salary mandatory by the 7th of every month. Transparency and trust ensured. Equal pay for equal work made mandatory, women’s participation is strengthened. Facility for women to work night shifts in all establishments – women to get opportunity to earn higher wages. Timely resolution of harassment, discrim- ination, and wage related disputes. Guarantee of social security benefits through fixed-term employment and mandatory appointment letters.

REALITY: Every benefit claimed for IT and ITes workers is already guaranteed under the law and is in fact being diluted under the Codes. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 already mandates timely release of salaries, with timelines and penalties for delay. Presenting the 7th-of-the-month payment requirement as a new benefit is simply misleading. 

Far from strengthening equality, the Codes dilute it. By altering the definition of “wages” to exclude various allowances, the Codes institutionalise wage discrimination. What is shown as progress is, in reality, a retreat from long-standing safeguards under the Equal Remuneration Act and constitutional principles. 

The claim that women are being “granted the opportunity” to work night shifts is not a freedom for women, but is in fact expanded power for employers to compel women to work at night. The promise of “timely resolution” is baseless when the Codes themselves weaken the foundational rights required to make such claims.

Fixed-term employment does not guarantee social security. Instead, it entrenches precarious work and normalises short-term contracts, giving a blow to job security. By introducing fixed-term contracts, the Codes increase insecurity across the work- force.

Export Sector Workers

MYTH: Export sector fixed term workers to receive gratuity, provident fund (PF), and other social security benefits. Every worker to have the option of availing a nual leaves after 180 days of work in a year. Every worker to get right to timely wage payment and no unauthorized wage deductions and no wage ceiling restrictions. Women allowed to work in night shifts with consent, ensuring opportunity to earn higher income.

REALITY: No special benefits have been granted to export-sector workers. Every so-called “new” benefit already existed under law. In reality, the Codes do not add protections, they dilute the ones workers previously enjoyed. The narrative of rights and improved welfare is entirely false, the actual effect of the Codes is a systematic erosion of longstanding rights of workers.

11. CLAIMS OF REFORMS: IN FACT, ENTRENCH EMPLOYER DOMINATION

National Floor Wage

MYTH: National Floor Wage to ensure no worker receives a wage below the minimum living standard.

REALITY: The National Floor Wage will drive wages down, perpetuate poverty, and is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution. The Union government has declared Rs.178/- as the present floor wages. The so called national floor wage is, in fact, set below the existing minimum wages in many States. This completely undermines the very idea of a
minimum wage.

A minimum wage is supposed to guarantee the bare minimum income required for a worker to live a dignified, humane, and secure life. Instead of pushing wages up- ward, the introduction of an artificially low floor wage drags the entire wage structure downward. It creates a direct incentive, and even pressure, for States to reduce their own minimum wages to match a lower national benchmark. In practice, the “floor” becomes a ceiling, pulling legal wages to the bottom and eroding workers’ already fragile economic security.

Most importantly, this approach stands in stark contradiction to the Constitution. The Constitution speaks not merely of minimum wages, but of living wages. By promoting a wage floor that is lower than existing minimum wages, the Codes move workers further away from the constitutional guarantee.

Gender-neutral pay and job opportunities

The myth of gender neutral pay has been busted above. In reality, the Codes dilute the long-standing requirement of equal pay for equal work. By altering the definition of “wages” and excluding various components, the Codes enable discrimination. This means that two workers - a man and a woman performing the same work - can legally be paid different total earnings simply because employers can shift the disparity into excluded wage components.

Inspector-cum-Facilitator

MYTH: Inspector-cum-Facilitator system, shifting enforcement towards guidance, awareness and compliance support rather than punitive action.

REALITY: The so-called Inspector-cum-Facilitator system is nothing but a dismantling of the enforcement machinery. By replacing inspectors with “facilitators,” the Codes shift the role from enforcing the law to merely offering guidance and hand- holding employers. In the process, the entire enforcement mechanism has been hollowed out. Under this model, the inspector effectively becomes an agent of the management rather than an authority required to protect workers’ rights.

Laws do not need “guidance”, they need strict enforcement. Without real powers and without the ability to conduct surprise inspections there is no meaningful way to ensure compliance. A law without enforcement is just paper. A law that is not enforced is a law that does not exist for the worker.

Faster dispute resolution

MYTH: Faster dispute resolution.

REALITY: There is no faster mechanism under the Codes. The Codes propose a two-member tribunal, and the same cannot function until new appointments are made, a process that will inevitably be slow leaving workers stuck in limbo. Further, the assurance of faster dispute resolution is meaningless when the underlying rights themselves have been diluted or removed. Once core protections are weakened, there is little left for workers to legally claim or enforce.

Single registration, licence and return

It reduces the obligation to maintain detailed, establishment-wise records that protect workers’ rights and ensure accountability. This makes it harder to track violations, leaving workers with fewer safeguards.

National OSH Board

The stated goal is to harmonise standards. However in reality by clubbing together a whole range of distinct industries, each with very different working conditions, the Codes flatten out the protections instead of strengthening them. This inevitably leads to dilution of entitlements, because instead of ensuring specific safety, health, and welfare standards considering workplace conditions, the Codes reduce everything to a lowest common denominator.

Safety Committees

MYTH: Mandatory Safety committee for establishments with over 500 workers.

REALITY: This is blatantly false. The Code only permits the government to man- date safety committee, and it is not required in the law itself. This dilutes the 1948 Factories Act, which required Safety committee for all establishment performing hazardous work.

Higher factory applicability limits

MYTH: Higher factory applicability limits, easing regulatory burden for small units while retaining full safeguards for workers.

REALITY: The increased threshold limit for factories means that workers in factories using power with less than 20 workers are not entitled to statutory protections, excluding large number of workers from the protection of the law. “Easing regulatory burden” effectively means pushing workers outside the protection of the law. The assertion that full protections are retained is blatantly false.

Consultations

The release mentions wide-ranging consultations carried out during the drafting of the Labour Codes. However, the central trade unions had opposed the Labour Codes and sought repeatedly that the same not be brought into effect, despite which the same was rammed through.