Ministry of Labour, Government of India has prepared a Labour Code on Industrial Relations, 2015

consolidating The Trade Unions Act, 1926; the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Code has been posted on April 27, 2015 and has sought responses
from the public before May 26, 2015.

This code will have far reaching implications and will affect all workers. It will have an impact on the
industrial relations, employment and livelihood security of millions of workers and their families.

As it appears, the proposed code attempts to divide workers in unorganized and organized groups, it
does not address issues and grievances/disputes of unorganized informal workers. This can perpetuate
inequality in the society and distance the country from its goal of attaining distributive justice.

Rights of workers rights are as important as human rights. In the light of the enabling provisions made
by the Indian state towards Right to Information, Right to Food Security and Right to Education, it is
important that a Labour Rights perspective is reflected in the Labour Codes.

Given this, Social Security Now (SSN), a national network of organisations and individuals working for
the realisation of social security for all in India has called a meeting of its network members and
concerned individuals, in Delhi, on May 15, 2015, to discuss and evolve a position on the Labour Code on
Wage Bill. The suggestions of Social Security Now integrating suggestions of academicians, related
organisations and individuals are given below:

The code is not a simplified law; amendments proposed in consolidated code are anti -workers; it is
more ambiguous and the code is not useful even to industry because procedure is not simplified.

The NCL- I (1969, )The Sanat Mehta committee in 1983, Ramanujam Committee 1990, National Labour
Law Commission and NCL-II (2002) recommended for setting up of independent ‘Industrial Relation
Commission’ for resolving industrial disputes. This ‘Independent Industrial Relation Commission’ IRC,
would have three wings 1. Conciliation and Arbitration wing 2. Adjudication wing and 3. Enforcement
wing and entire labour administration would have independent identity.

Excessive government control is root cause of unsatisfactory working of labour administration. IRC
would be more realistic, judicious and progressive system.

This Labour code ignored all such progressive recommendations.

To whom the code applies is not clear, section 1 does not specify applicability provision.

In the definition of ‘appropriate government’, ‘Atomic Energy’, ‘Controlled Industry’ which were dealt
by central government hitherto have been left for state government. Words ‘By or under the authority
of the central government’ in existing ID Act created problems of interpretation even in Supreme Court.
This syntax be replaced by the words ‘Under the control of the central government’ to avoid confusion
of interpretation. It is not clear who will be appropriate government where Union Territory exist. The
words ‘oil fiend’ needs to be defined to avoid confusion and to know whether pipelines, depots will be
covered. Words Major Port’ is not defined in the code but it was there in ID Act.

In the definition of ‘award’ last words ‘and include…..made under section 61’ – the form of report or
award, the section 61 is wrongly quoted.

Definition of ‘ Industry’ excludes industry by self-employed workers. It should be included because self-
employed workers include piece rated workers. Further, the self employed workers and where employer
is camouflaged as agent or sardar or collection agent of product from piece-rated workers, need to be
covered within the ambit of this legal protection.

Area-based, industry based or occupation based union cannot be formed because number of employers
in such situations will be more than one or many may be hundreds. This should be provided for in the
law. It is therefore necessary to make provision for unions of workers in situations when the employer
employee relationship is not clear. The necessity of existence of employer while defining Trade Union
needs to be relooked. It is also important to include in this definition, other organisations including
NGOs working for raising issues of working people. Agriculture should also be included in the fold of the
definitions. Agriculture workers have employment related problems. They are being organised by trade
unions. There is no other law to address their problems.

Right to form union as well as the right to strike should be protected for all workers without any
exclusion. Concerns here in are that the present code does not define The ‘Public Utility Services’. This
makes strike notice necessary in all industries (presently in ID Act strike notice is mandatory in Public
Utility Services only). (Refer section 71 and 72 in proposed IR Code). This may amount to denying or
restricting right of strike to workers. Code provides for series of interventions by labour department
officials and labour judiciary and during pendency of proceedings in conciliation, arbitration,
adjudication strike may amount to be illegal.

Trade union federations should also be considered as legal and be registered. Further, government
should make enabling provisions that are in line with the ILO Convention 87 concerning ‘Freedom of
Association and Protection of Right to Organise’ and ILO Convention 98 concerning ‘Right to Collective
Bargaining’ right to form trade unions and also ratify the convention so that registration of trade unions
is not restrictive and in conformity with international standards or commitments.

A specific concern in Section on Registration of trade unions (10 and 11) is that this provides for issuing
registration certificate within 60 days if application is complete in all respect. Section 11 provides for
deemed registration after 60 days if registrar fails to issue certificate of registration. But How deemed
unsigned certificate will be valid is not clear. It is necessary that deemed certificate be signed while
accepting completed application for registration.

Existing provision for Cancellation of Registration of TUs by the Registrar should be deleted as it is
interference in affairs of a union. Forming associations or unions is constitutional right of citizens and
labour; how registrar can take away constitutional right of workers by cancelling registration. It is
unconstitutional provision.

Section 12 provides forCancellation of Registration by registrar particularly when(sub-section 12 (e)

if the trade union has not held its elections as prescribed under this Code within the prescribed period;)
is highly objectionable , unconstitutional and interference in affairs of trade union. This must be deleted.

Section 27 (1) restricts outsiders to become office bearer in respect of a union in unorganized sector.
But ‘Unorganised Sector’ is not defined in the proposed draft code. Further unorganized sector
establishments could be small employing 5 or 7 workers only; large number of home workers are
engaged through middle men/agents/contractors; employer-employee relationship is vague or near
absent. This should be relooked as outsiders are necessary in trade unions of unorganized workers.

Section 27(2) restricts all outsiders to become office bearers in organized sector.Trade unions oppose
this. It is ridiculous.

In the case of a Trade Union, being a federation or central organisation of trade unions, how can such
restriction be implemented?
This provision is not acceptable as it is interference in affairs of a trade union.

It is altra-vires being denial of right to organize.

Section 35 restricts applicability of provisions of standing orders excluding establishments employing

less than 100 workers. Many industries reduce number of regular workers and outsource their most of
works. There is automation of industries and contractualisation of work. Contractual employees should
also therefore be included and not denied the protection of well-defined service conditions. Prescribing
Number for applicability should be removed.

The central government should make model standing orders now and place in schedule …as it was in the
existing IESO Act. Sec.35(2) be modified.

There should be a time limit set within which time employer shall prepare draft standing orders, within
which time he will discuss with negotiating agent and submit to certifying officer and the certifying
officer will certify standing orders. ‘Negotiating Agent’ and ‘Recognized Negotiating Agent’ in the code
should be defined. Time line of each process/step needs to be provided. It is also not clear why
provisions of modification of standing orders as given in sub section (2) shall not apply to Gujarat and
Maharashtra.

There is no logic of exemption under the proviso of section 47 relating to giving NOTICE OF CHANGE in
conditions of service. Thus, all industrial workers should get opportunity to oppose, represent in case of
change in conditions of service is affected irrespective of applicability of FR, SR CCS Rules ,Rly
establishment code etc.

Section 54 of this code empowers central government to refer any dispute of national importance to a
National tribunal whether it is appropriate government or not. In ID Act section 10 (1-A) it is provided
that ‘whether central government is appropriate or not’ it may refer such disputes to a National
tribunal. Present section 54 does not incorporate such syntax. This would lead to complication and
overlapping jurisdiction.

In Section 64 The requirement of affidavit that ‘worker had not been employed in any establishment’
during such period of pendency of proceedings in higher courts be done away with.

Section 71 (7) appears unnecessary in view of various other provisions of section 71. A worker has right
to strike regulated by various provisions of section 71, his contract of employments cannot take away
his right.

Chapter IX applies to industrial establishments employing 50 or less workers (section74) . Thus those
who work in industrial establishments employing less than 50 workers will not be protected, will not be
given notice before retrenchment and retrenchment compensation at the rate of 45 days of wages for
every completed years of service. This leaves a vast section of workers without employment security
and therefore it is discriminatory. Large number of workers will face hire and fire policy of employers.

Further, the notice period should be 3 months (in section 79 (a) like workers of factories, mines and
plantations covered under chapter X.

Chapter x Special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments is
most anti-worker change in existing provisions of lay-offs, retrenchment and closure. Existing provisions
under chapter V-B of ID Act apply to mines, factories and plantations employing not less than 100
workmen. These new provisions in chapter X will apply to all establishments including mines, factories
and plantations employing not less than 300 workers. In this chapter all establishments employing not
less than 300 workers, are required to obtain permission of appropriate government before lay off,
retrenchment and closure. But now all establishments, including mines, factories and plantations
employing less than 300 workers will not be required to obtain permission of government. Thus vary
large number of mines, factories and plantations will not be covered under these provisions which
protected workers till now. Hire and fire policies will be practiced freely.

Government should incorporate provisions of ‘workers participation in management’ in IR Code.

In the definition of Industrial Disputes, individual disputes relating to service conditions should also be
included. Presently individual disputes of termination, discharge, retrenchment and dismissal only are
included.

In addition to considering and incorporating these provisions in the proposed code, SSN also requests
the government to work towards ensuring implementation and enforcement of laws without
discrimination.