Friday, July 26, 2019

Decoding Bills Part VI: Code on Wages 2019: A universal minimum wage is fine but can it be enforced?

Code on Wages 2019: While the idea is good, the real challenge is in implementing it. The enforcement mechanism has proved inadequate in the presentation situation and little attention has been paid to this aspect in the bill which widens the scope of coverage.

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | July 25, 2019 | Updated 14:42 IST
Code on Wages 2019: A universal minimum wage is fine but can it be enforced?
Code on Wages 2019: After years of trying, the central government has made a fresh bid to universalise provision of minimum wages to all workers, both in organised and unorganised sector, through the Code of Wages, 2019.

Code on Wages 2019: After years of trying, the central government has made a fresh bid to universalise provision of minimum wages to all workers, both in organised and unorganised sector, through the Code of Wages, 2019. The last attempt was made in 2017 when a bill for the purpose was introduced in the Lok Sabha and referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee but could not be passed.

What the Bill says

The Bill amalgamates four labour laws relating to wages and bonus and related matters - the Payment of Wages Act of 1936, Minimum Wages Act of 1948, Payment of Bonus Act of 1965 and Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 - into a single code and provides for a national minimum wages for all workers.

It provides for all essential elements related to wages, equal remuneration, its timely payment and bonus. The minimum wage would include basic rate of wage, cost of living allowance and the cash value of concessions etc. and take into account skills, arduousness of work, geographical locations and other aspects to fix it. Both the central and state governments will fix minimum wages in their respective sphere.

The provision relating to timely payment and authorised deductions (applicable until now for employees drawing Rs 24,000 per month) will be applicable to "all employees irrespective of wage ceiling", including those in the government establishments.

To remove arbitrariness and malpractices, there would be Inspectors-cum-Facilitators in place of Inspectors. The Parliamentary panel had objected to replacing Inspector with Facilitator on the ground that the latter seemed to suggest dilution of the implementation mechanism and hence the hyphenated arrangement.

Labour Law reforms: Nobody knows who's a 'worker' under Indian laws! Do you?

The bill also provides for the appointment of one or more authorities, instead of multiple ones at present, to decide claims and an appellate authority for speedy, cheaper and efficient redressal of grievances.

In case of claims relating to non-payment or less payment of wages or bonus or unauthorised deductions, the burden of proof would be on the employer. The period of limitation for filing claims has been extended to three years (from six months to two years).

The Bill also provides for revising minimum wages every five years and emphasises on the use of technology for enforcement, along with payment of wages by cheque or through digital modes.

Why the change

The statement of object and reasons of the bill says that the purpose is to widen the scope to ensure equity and ease of compliance of labour laws. This would lead to setting up more industries and create more jobs. It further says the endeavour is to remove multiplicity of definitions and authorities without compromising on the basic concepts of welfare and benefits to workers and to bring transparency and accountability into the system.

The amalgamation is in line with the recommendation of the second National Commission on Labour of 2002 and tripartite consultations (among government, industry and employee representatives) held earlier.

Labour reforms: No one knows the size of India's informal workforce, not even the govt

The Economic Survey of 2018-19 had highlighted the complexity in the minimum wage system in India by pointing out that there were nearly 429 scheduled employments and 1,915 scheduled job categories for unskilled workers across India covered by the Minimum Wages Act of 1948. The bill removes the concept of 'scheduled employments' - declared as such by the central and state governments.

Implementation and other challenges

The industry welcomes the move. MS Unnikrishnan, chairman of the CII National Committee on Industrial Relations, says this will help in addressing violation of minimum wage provisions and exploitation of labour. However, he cautions that the state governments should desist from competitive populism to inflate minimum wages to an extent that it would make industry unviable and uncompetitive. "We have to be competitive and viable as business enterprises and should not lose sight of that", he warns.

The labour unions are divided

The RSS-affiliated Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) views the bill as a historical and revolutionary step. The BMS president CK Sajinarayanan says with this the last worker would now be covered with the minimum wages, instead of just those in the scheduled employment.

5 contentious issues holding up India's labour law reforms

The Left-backed Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) however has several objections. Its general secretary Tapan Sen says the formula for fixing minimum wage has been kept out of the Bill despite the fact that there is unanimity on this and which was also reiterated at the 46th Indian Labour Conference in 2015 attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. By not putting the formula in place, the bill leaves it at the government's complete discretion, he reasons.

Besides, he says the definition of 'wage' is confusing, too long (42 lines) and too difficult to determine what wage is as per this definition. He questions different floor rates for different geographical areas, saying that makes the concept of a national rate "a deceptive ploy to mislead people".

Sen further points out that the Bill defines 'worker' and 'employee' differently in a deliberate attempt to leave room for exploitation of workers. This is in spite of the Parliamentary panel's recommendation for a common and comprehensive definition of employee/worker to avoid discrimination between employees and workers for the purpose of minimum wages. That would have also brought clarity for implementation.

Economist Prof KR Shyam Sundar of the XLRI's Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, says the bill is aspirational, symbolic and lacks credibility because the government simply does not have the enforcement wherewithal to implement it on such a big scale.

Budget 2019: Five polices to redesign India's minimum wage system

The Economic Survey of 2018-19 had pointed out that one-third of workers covered under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 (meant only for only the scheduled employments) have "fallen through the cracks and is not protected by the minimum wage law". Sundar points out that the bill would cover a much larger number of workers, which would become even tougher now that it has diluted enforcement by removing power of entry of the labour inspectors.

His other bigger concern is multiplicity of minimum wage rates to be fixed on the basis of skill, arduousness and hazardousness of work, geographical regions and other norms as may be prescribed by the governments. "There should be a single statutory minimum wage applicable to all sectors of workers and regional differences can be taken care of by adjusting the cost of living allowance. This will make it simple", he suggests, adding that keeping the door open for creating numerous minimum wage rates would make the system complex and tough for implementation.

Code on Wages Bill: What's the tussle between centre and states?

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?
 20  4

Decoding Bills Part V: National Medical Commission Bill 2019: What is it and why is the medical fraternity opposed to it?

The Bill seeks to replace the Indian Medical Council, which was taken over by the government earlier in the month, for better development and regulation of medical education, medical profession and medical institutions in India

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | August 14, 2019 | Updated 09:17 IST
National Medical Commission Bill 2019: What is it and why is the medical fraternity opposed to it?
The National Medical Commission Bill of 2019 proposes to have four autonomous boards to take care of its different functions.

After an aborted attempt during the previous Lok Sabha, the central government has made a fresh bid to replace the controversial Indian Medical Council (IMC) with a National Medical Commission (NMC) to regulate medical education and practices in India. While the Medical Council of India (MCI) was an autonomous body with two-third of its members (160 plus) being directly elected by the medical fraternity, the new one would have 25 members with no directly elected member.

Earlier in the month, the government had passed the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill of 2019 to supersede the IMC on the ground that it had failed to discharge its duties and indulged in corrupt practices.

What the Bill provides

The National Medical Commission Bill of 2019 proposes to have four autonomous boards to take care of its different functions:

(i) Under-Graduate Medical Education Board to set standards and regulate medical education at undergraduate level

(ii) Post-Graduate Medical Education Board to set standards and regulate medical education at postgraduate level

(iii) Medical Assessment and Rating Board for inspections and rating of medical institutions and

(iv) Ethics and Medical Registration Board to regulate and promote professional conduct and medical ethics and also maintain national registers of (a) licensed medical practitioners and (b) Community Health Providers (CHPs).

The CHPs are a new class of medical practitioners to be given licenses to practice modern medicine at mid-level to those "connected with modern scientific medical profession", the criteria for which would be specified later. Their number would be one-third of the total number of licensed and registered medical practitioners.

As for admissions and licensing, the Bill provides for a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to all undergraduate and post-graduate "super-speciality" medical education, while providing for another one, National Exit Test (NEXT) for granting "license" to practice and admission to postgraduate "broad-speciality courses".

So far, all admissions are through the NEET and no licensing is required for practice but a medical practitioner has to register with a state medical council for this.

The Bill also proposes for the NMC to "frame guidelines for determination of fee and other charges" for 50% of seats in private medical institutions and deemed to be universities.

Currently, state governments determine fees for 85% of seats in such institutions and the rest are left for the management.

Other powers of the NMC include permission to establish new medical colleges, start post-graduate courses, increase the number of seats, recognition of medical qualifications in and outside India etc.

Reasons for change

The Statement of Object and Reasons of the Bill says the IMC had failed to keep pace with time and various bottlenecks had crept into the system with serious detrimental effects on medical education and, by implication, on delivery of quality health services.

A Parliamentary panel which had looked into the matter had recommended restructuring and revamping of the regulatory system of medical education and practice.

It had also recommended separation of functions by forming four autonomous boards and appointment of regulators through selection, rather than election.

IMA's four major concerns

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) - the apex body representing the medical fraternity in India which had earlier opposed the government takeover of the MCI has strong reservations about the NMC too. Dr RV Asokan, secretary-general of the IMA, list four major ones.

The first one is over the CHPs being allowed to practice modern medicine. The Bill does not define who they are or what qualifications they hold and yet they are to be given licenses to the extent of one-third of the total number of licensed medical practitioners in India.

Dr Asokan says this may open the door for persons with inadequate training in modern medicine to practice, putting patients at risk and lowering standards of healthcare.

He fears those with some connections with modern medicine like pharmacists, practitioners of other systems of medicines with a bridge course, ophthalmologists and even existing healthcare workers at the primary health centres may get licenses to practice modern medicine.

"They may not have sufficient background in the study of anatomy, physiology or pathology etc. which form the basis of modern medicine. Besides, their significant presence will endanger patient safety and dilute healthcare in the country, especially in the rural areas", he comments.

Dr Asokan points out that about 68,000 medical graduates pass out of more than 500 medical colleges every year. As only 23,000 of them qualify for post-graduation courses, the rest (45,000) end up looking for jobs or loiter around coaching institutions.

"Here the government is providing an opportunity for unqualified or partially qualified persons to practice while the qualified ones are available and frustrated because of unemployment", he observes, adding that this is another attempt at lateral entry for the unqualified or partially qualified that the government had proposed in an earlier Bill but was forced to withdraw due to protests.

The IMA's second major objection is to the proposed National Exit Test (NEXT) for giving both licenses for practice (to those who have already cleared the MBBS exam) as well as for admission to post-graduate "broad-speciality courses".

Dr Asokan says the two objectives can't be reconciled since the level of knowledge and training required for both are very different. While for practising medicine, a minimum level of competence is required (passing the MBBS), admission to post-graduate courses calls for a higher level of competence and only the cream of the profession gets selected.

"In the last NEET exam, only 70,000 of 1.43 lakh candidates qualified for post-graduate courses. What will the rest 73,000 qualified MBBS doctors do? They will not be licensed to practice, thus defeating the very objective of providing greater number of trained health manpower", he comments.

The third major objection is to "frame guidelines" to determine fees and all other charges for 50% of seats in private medical institutions and deemed to be universities (the MCI did not have such powers).

Dr Asokan says at present state governments "regulate" fees for 85% of such seats and the rest (15%) are for the management to decide. "Now the NMC proposes to only frame guidelines for regulating fees for 50% of seats.

This is further dilution of the power to fix fees where all 100% of seats may be available for the highest bidder, thereby increasing the cost of medical education. It is a reservation for the rich", he says.

The IMA has another major objection. This is about the power the Bill gives to the central government to give policy and other directives to the NMC and its autonomous boards which will be binding and final.

This is contradictory to the very concept of autonomy of the four boards. The central government has also been empowered to give directives to state governments for implementing provisions of the Bill, which will also be binding, reflecting the anti-federal character of the Bill.

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?
 72  7

Decoding Bills Part IV: RTI Bill 2019: Undermining autonomy of information commissions and transparency in governance

The amendment proposes to reduce the status of information commissioners and fix their term of office from five years or until the age of 65 years at present,

ADVERTISEMENT
The amendment proposes to reduce the status of information commissioners and fix their term of office from five years or until the age of 65 years at present. (LSTV/PTI)

After an aborted attempt in 2018, the central government proposes to amend the Right to Information Act of 2005 (RTI Act) to change the term of office and service conditions the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioner (IC) at the central as well as state levels. These aspects are now proposed to be determined by the central government.

A Bill for the purpose was introduced in the Lok Sabha today.

What the amendment says

The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 proposes two fundamental changes.

One, it proposes to change the tenure of the CIC and IC at the centre and state levels from five years or until the age of 65 years at present to "for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government". Two, it proposes change in their salaries and allowances "as may be prescribed by the Central Government".

The original law 1 provided that at the central level, the salaries, allowances and other terms and condition of service of the CIC and IC would be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioner (EC), respectively. At the state level, those for the State CIC and State IC will be the same as the EC and the Chief Secretary to the state government, respectively.

The Election Commission (Conditions of Services of Election Commissioners and Transactions of Business) Act of 1991 2 provides that the salary and other service conditions of the CEC and EC are equal to a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the CIC, IC and State CIC are equivalent to a Judge of the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why the change?

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 reasons that the functions being carried out by the Election Commission of India and the Central and State Information Commissions are "totally different". While the Election Commission is a constitutional body established under the Article 324 of the Constitution of India for conducting elections to the Parliament and State Legislatures and to the offices of the President and Vice President held under the Constitution, the Central and State Information Commissions are statutory bodies established under the RTI Act of 2005.

"Therefore, the mandate of Election Commission of India and Central and State Information Commissions are different. Hence, their status and service conditions need to be rationalized accordingly", it adds.

Implication of the proposed changes

Not only the RTI activists and opposition political leaders but also former information commissioners have been strongly opposing such amendment. They fear it would compromise autonomy and independence of the information commissions and the commissioners. It was their protests which had forced the government to desist from introducing such an amendment in 2018 after having circulated it among the Members of Parliament.

Prof Sridhar Acharyulu, who served as the central Information Commissioner during 2013-2018, says the amendment makes information commissions subordinate to the government. "This has dangerous implications. The whole edifice of the RTI's implementation stands on the way the information commission deals with it. The independent interpretation of the RTI Act is possible only with its independence from the executive," he says.

Acharyulu also points out that by diminishing the status of the CIC, IC and State CIC from that of a Supreme Court judge would reduce their ability to issue directives to senior government functionaries, adding that the change would "kill the RTI Act" and is an "affront to federalism, good governance and ultimately, democracy". He warns that it would also render freedom of speech meaningless.

Shailesh Gandhi, who also served as an IC at the centre during 2009-12, calls the proposed amendment "very unfortunate" as it shows that the government wants to control the independence of information commissions. He says no strong reason has been given for the amendment either.

Describing it as "completely inadequate", he says India's RTI Act is one of the best in the world and what is lacking is its proper implementation. The least the government should have done is to rush through without prior consultations with the stakeholders, he observes.

A prominent RTI activist, Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra says "it is another attempt by the government to take away the autonomy of information commissions and amounts to killing the citizens' right to know.

Commodore Batra also points out that the amendment goes against the Supreme Court judgement of February 2019 (in the case of Anjali Bhardwaj and Others vs Union of India and Others) 3 . The apex court had clearly stated while dealing with vacancies of information commissioners that, "Insofar as terms and conditions of appointment are concerned, no doubt, Section 13(5) of RTI Act states that the CIC and Information Commissioners shall be appointed on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the Chief Election Commissioner/Election Commissioner. At the same time, it would also be appropriate if the said terms and conditions on which such appointments are to be made are specifically stipulated in the advertisement and put on website as well."

Friday, July 19, 2019

Labour Law Reforms Part V: Are rigid laws alone to be blamed for all the ills?

New studies have found that there is more to growing contractualisation in the formal sector and preponderance of small-sized manufacturing establishments in India than just rigid and size-based labour laws.

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | July 19, 2019 | Updated 13:38 IST
Labour reforms: Are rigid laws alone to be blamed for all the ills?
It remains to be seen how the government addresses such concerns while finalising the new labour codes.

India's rigid, complicated and size-based labour laws (different laws kick in depending on the size of the workforce in a unit) are often blamed not only for widespread use of contract labour characterised by lower-wage, little or no job security, fewer benefits and social security but also for preventing small manufacturing units to grow in size and achieve economy of scale popularly understood as the 'missing middle'. New studies show such assessments may not be entirely true.

Contract system and labour laws

In her 2019 study, explaining the Contractualisation of India's Workforce, Prof Radhicka Kapoor of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), counters the attribution of widespread use of contract labour in organised (formal) manufacturing to the rigidity of labour laws alone. She studied plant-level data from the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) from 2000-01 to 2013-14 to arrive at her conclusions.

While asserting that labour regulations have not become more rigid in the period when contract worker intensity has surged, she presents three counter-arguments. One, even states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Maharashtra which amended their labour laws to make them more employer-friendly in recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of contract workers. Second, contrary to what should have been expected, there is a larger usage of contract workers in capital intensive, rather than labour-intensive industries which should be hit harder because of the rigid laws.

Third, real wages of directly hired workers are about one-half-times more than contract workers (hired through contractors) over the past decade which encourages hiring on contract. She argues that management has used contract workers to suppress the bargaining power of directly hired workers and keep wages low.

Also Read: Labour Law reforms: Nobody knows who's a 'worker' under Indian laws! Do you?

Of the 'missing middle' in organised manufacturing

Rigid and size-based labour laws have also been blamed for the 'missing middle' - absence of mid-size industries in the organised manufacturing sector. A 2018 study of the Azim Premjit University, Of Missing Middle and Size-based Regulation by Prof R Nagaraj debunks this and says it is more likely to reflect the widespread and growing evasion of official registration and under-reporting or misrepresentation in the administrative data.

Prof Nagaraj says it is a case of measurement error. Those employing 10 or more workers using power are to be registered (which is said to be costly) under the Factories Act of 1948. Comparing economic census and ASI data, he shows that in 1981, 52% of factories employing 10 or more workers were not registered. This went up to 57% in 1991 and 66% by 2013-14. But such units constitute only about 1% in total manufacturing and he blames it on dis-functionality of many labour regulations and corruption in their implementation.

Another case of non-implementation he cites is prior government permission required for lay-off, retrenchment and closure of factories employing 100 or more workers under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. He shows that this regulation is more on paper as during 1997-2003 nearly 1 in 6 workers in the organised sector lost his/her job and again during 2008-09 (financial crisis) substantial job losses were recorded in the official survey.

If the labour laws were really so strict, he argues, it should get reflected in a steady rise in real wages and earnings in organised manufacturing, commensurate with labour productivity growth. But evidence since 1970s showed otherwise. While labour productivity in real terms grew annually at nearly 6%, real wages grew just 1.2%, implying almost all the productivity gains accrued to employers.

Also Read: Labour reforms: No one knows the size of India's informal workforce, not even the govt

He attributes the apparent disconnect between the formal law and the reality of the labour market to "various loopholes that are built into the laws, providing enough escape routes for employers". To illustrates this, he gives the example of the definition of a worker which varies across the laws.

Prof Jayan Jose Thomas of IIT-Delhi also makes similar points in the Azim Premji University's 2019 paper, State of Working India. He writes that employers find different ways to circumvent labour regulations while the authorities adopt a lax attitude towards implementing them.

He cites a field study (2018) of women garment workers in Bangalore to show how the employers adopted different strategies to avoid paying gratuity, including persuading workers to terminate their current contract and re-join the same factory within a week or so, on a new contract.

Relaxation in legal protections

That being so, trade unions and economists have expressed serious reservations about the proposed increase in the threshold for application of the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947, Factories Act of 1948 and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 in the new labour codes being framed. They fear this would push more workers into unprotected territories and make them more vulnerable.

The proposed changes envisage increase in threshold in the Factories Act of 1948 from 10 and 20 (if power is used) workers to 20 and 40 workers, respectively, for applicability of this law and from 100 to 300 workers in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 for requirement of government permission for lay-off etc. Trade union leader Tapan Sen of the CITU says, the increase of threshold in the Factories Act alone would take more than 70% of workers in the organised sector out of its legal protections.

Also Read: Labour law reform crucial to boosting investment, generating employment: SBI report

Yet another proposed change is an increase in the threshold for applicability of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 from 20 to 50 in line with the ones adopted by Rajasthan, Haryana and Maharashtra. Prof KR Shyam Sundar of XLRI's Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, says this would remove a considerable number of contract workers from the purview of the law.

"This has two major implications. One, small scale contractors will be least obliged to provide decent wages and conditions of work and two, regular workers employed by the principal employer in such cases can't demand for abolition of contract labour system. As a result, contractualisation and precaritisation of terms of employment in the labour market will be intensified".

It remains to be seen how the government addresses such concerns while finalising the new labour codes.

Also Read: Labour law reforms: Contractual workers hiring on rise in organised sector; is informal the new formal?

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?
  0

Labour reforms Part IV: Contractual workers' hiring on rise in organised sector; is informal the new formal?

Hiring through contract is on the rise, which the economists and labour unions think will adversely affect productivity and human capital, although industry is batting for it.

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | July 19, 2019 | Updated 13:39 IST
Labour reforms: Contractual workers' hiring on rise in organised sector; is informal the new formal?
Not just in the organised sector, contract system has made rapid inroads into the government and PSU jobs too.

At a time when the government is proposing to improve the living conditions of informal sector workers by providing them with social security and other legal protections, the state of those in the formal sector of the economy - organised sector employing 10 or more as well as those in central and state governments and public sector undertakings -  is not very encouraging.

Growing contractualisation in organised sector

Prof Radhicka Kapoor of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) says the formal sector is hiring more and more people on contract - those who are not hired directly but through a contractor for limited tenure - because it significantly lowers the cost of hiring for performing the same job and suppresses the bargain power of workforce.

In her 2019 study, explaining the Contractualisation of India's Workforce, she shows that while total employment in organised manufacturing (registered under the Factories Act of 1948) increased from 7.7 million in 2000-01 to 13.7 million in 2015-16, more than half of this increase was because of the increase in contract workers. Their share increased sharply from 15.5% in 2000-01 to 27.9% in 2015-16 - as per the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI). She says these contract workers can be fired easily, have little or no job security and far fewer benefits in terms of health, welfare and social security compared to directly employed workers (though not necessarily permanent ones).

The ASI's annual report of 2016-17 shows contract workers in the total workforce - those in the organised manufacturing units as well as bidi and cigar units and electricity undertakings not registered under the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) - have grown steadily from 34% in 2012-13 to 36% in 2016-17.

The Azim Premji University's 2019 State of Working in India report says that "contract workers are employed in almost every aspect of the production operation now and they form 70-80% of all workers in Maruti Suzuki's plants in Gurgaon and Manesar".

Industry spokesman, MS Unnikrishnan of the CII, agrees that contract workers have rapidly risen. He says some sectors like automobile have seen 70-80% of contract workers while the average for the industry is about 10-30%. The reason being, he says, the moment workers are made permanent their productivity goes down, they don't cooperate in modernisation or influx of new technologies and it becomes very difficult to manage them due to their unionisation. He defends the contract system by giving the example of the automobile sector which, he says, not only has a higher share of contract workers but also has one of the highest productivity in the industry.

Limited data for formal economy as a whole

Not just in the organised sector, the contract system has made rapid inroads into the government and PSU jobs too. The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangathan's (BMS) Pawan Kumar gives the example of the NTPC's thermal power unit on Delhi's outskirts (Badarpur), which was shut down last October. He says the BMS was shocked to learn that it had only 148 permanent workers while the number of contract workers was more than 2,500.

The ASI data maps only a part of the formal economy - that of the organised sector employing 10 or more but not those employed with central and state governments and public sector undertakings. When taken in its entirety, there is no telling how many of them are on contract in the formal economy, while hiring on contract is rampant in government and public undertakings.

5 contentious issues holding up India's labour law reforms

Prof KR Shyam Sundar of XLRI's Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur, says no data on the contract (in the entire formal economy) was ever available. Moreover, the government has stopped publishing data on employment in the formal economy after 2012. This is reflected in the latest Economic Survey of 2018-19 too, which gives information about the formal employment only until 2012 and does not mention contract employment at all.

Labour Law reforms: Nobody knows who's a 'worker' under Indian laws! Do you?

He wonders why the information on formal employment has been stopped since this is a statutory requirement under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act of 1959. "Either these data are not being collected or not being declared because of rapid decline in the formal jobs", he says.

Implications of contractualisation

The labour union takes a dim view of the contract system. The BMS president CK Sajinarayanan says it will "not only destroy the standard of living of workers but also destroy productivity and industrial progress". That is because he explains, contract work means low wages, low skills, low working conditions, no permanent relationship with any particular industry as a result of which quality of work diminishes, leading to lower productivity and progress.

The industry may have a different take but economists are on the side of the labour unions' concerns.

Prof Sundar points out that as the latest Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) of 2017-18, released in May 2019 shows, even among the "regular wage/salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector" 71.1% have no written contract - up from 59% in 2004-5 - reflecting that precariousness of employees have increased. Those with no paid leave also increased from 46% to 54% during the same period. Besides, in 2017-18, 49.6% had no social security.

"Growing informalisation, precariousness and joblessness have seriously undermined the capacity of people to not only contribute productively at workplace but building of human capital for the future because they can't spend on health and education of their children", he says.

Labour reforms: No one knows the size of India's informal workforce, not even the govt

Prof Kapoor says the industry is basically using contract workers strategically to suppress bargaining power of directly hired workers and keep wages low. Contract workers are hired on a significantly lower wage than the directly hired ones (real wages of directly hired ones have been one-and-half times more in the past decade). Their presence acts as an alternative workforce to the directly hired ones.

Does this help the economy? Prof Kapoor says if there is no security of tenure and wages are low there is very little incentive to invest in skilling from either side - contract workers and firms engaging them - leading to fall in productivity.

Labour law reform crucial to boosting investment, generating employment: SBI report

DO YOU LIKE THIS STORY?
  0

Rebooting Economy 70: The Bombay Plan and the concept of AatmaNirbhar Bharat

  The Bombay Plan, authored by the doyens of industry in 1944 first envisioned state planning, state ownership and control of industries to ...