Answer

Introduction

The Four Labour Codes (Social Security, Industrial Relations, Wage, and OSH) aim to consolidate 29 central laws to improve ease of doing business and formalize the economy. They represent a paradigm shift by extending legislative protection to gig, platform, and informal workers previously excluded from the legal net.

Body

Impact on Occupational Safety (OSH Code: Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020)

• Universal Coverage Scope: The Code extends safety norms to all establishments with 10+ workers, potentially covering millions in the unorganised sector.
• Annual Health Check-ups: It mandates free annual health examinations for employees above a certain age, addressing occupational diseases in informal setups.
  Eg: The OSH Code prioritizes the “Right to Health” for workers in hazardous environments.
• Gender Neutrality Rules: Women are now permitted to work in all establishments at night (with consent), ensuring safety protocols are standardized across genders.

Impact on Social Security (SS Code)

• Gig Worker Recognition: For the first time, gig and platform workers are legally defined, making them eligible for life and disability covers.
  Eg: Creation of a “Social Security Fund” specifically for the welfare of over 500 million unorganised workers.
• Portable Welfare Benefits: The “One Nation, One Ration Card” spirit is mirrored via the e-Shram portal, linking benefits to Aadhaar for migrant safety.
  Eg: Over 30 crore workers registered on e-Shram to access DBT-linked social security.
• National Security Board: A dedicated board is mandated to recommend welfare schemes for unorganised, gig, and platform workers.

Associated Concerns

• High Eligibility Thresholds: Many safety provisions only apply to establishments above a specific size, leaving out the smallest “nano-units.”
  Eg: Excluding small enterprises leaves the most vulnerable workers outside the safety net.
• Digital Divide Barriers: Dependency on digital registration (e-Shram) creates hurdles for workers with low literacy or poor internet access.
  Eg: Many migrant workers struggle to update their data on the centralized portal.
• Dilution of Inspections: The shift from “Inspectors” to “Facilitators” and web-based inspections may reduce the accountability of employers.

Overcoming Concerns

• Inclusive Infrastructure: Setting up physical “Worker Facilitation Centres” to assist with digital registration and grievance redressal.
• Lowering Thresholds: States should use their rule-making power to lower establishment size limits for safety compliance.
• Robust Fund Management: Ensuring the Social Security Fund is adequately financed through corporate social responsibility (CSR) and cess.

Challenges to the Federal Structure

• Centralized Rule-Making: The Codes grant the Union government “extraordinary powers” to bypass states in defining worker categories and welfare terms.
• Erosion of State Autonomy: Since “Labour” is in the Concurrent List, centralized portals and funds often overlap with existing State Welfare Boards.
• Uniformity vs. Diversity: The Codes impose a “one-size-fits-all” model, ignoring the unique industrial landscapes and minimum wage capacities of different states.

Conclusion

The Labour Codes align with federalism by allowing states to draft specific “Rules,” yet they lean toward centralization through unified digital platforms and standard definitions. While they offer a historic opportunity to protect the informal sector, success depends on cooperative federalism where the Centre provides the framework and States ensure localized, effective implementation.

DOWNLOAD PDF