Published On: February 27th 2026
Authored By: Chandana Penumacha
VIT AP University
ABSTRACT:
The year 2025 proved to be a landmark year for India’s labour law regime with the Operationalisation of the Occupational Safety, Health And Working Conditions Code, 2020 [1](OSHWC Code) in several States. The Code, enacted in 2020, along with many other of India’s archaic labour statutes, was to have its substantive impact only once enforced through the rules framed under it and operationalised by State governments at their level. The Code was legislated in 2025 and marked the move from a piece of legislation to the code’s operation being a legal framework used within workplaces across construction, mining, manufacturing, logistics and for those employed in the gig economy. This article challenges the Code as a new legal concept by critically examining its effects on protection for workers, employer liability, informal and migrant labour and constitutionalised labour rights. Against the backdrop of India’s Constitution and judicial pronouncements such as Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India[2] (1995) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), this Article examines if the enforcement phase indeed means a real surge in the workers’ rights or threatens to dilute them in order to make administrative facilitation possible. The analysis suggests that ultimately, the Code’s success would rely on strong enforcement mechanisms, courts’ judicial implementations and prioritised worker-centric spirit.
INTRODUCTION
India’s labour regulation has long been shaped by a dual tension between promoting economic growth and industrial competitiveness on the one hand and ensuring protection of worker welfare in terms of the Constitution of India on the other. A series of such labour protective legislations including the Factories Act, 1948 and its sequelae- The Mines Act, 1952; The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970; and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 etc. established the edifice of the protective labour law in India.
But over the decades, these laws became piecemeal, procedurally byzantine and so spottily enforced that in many cases they never did much to protect workers to begin with while encumbering employers with expenses and paperwork. It is against this backdrop that four codes[3] combined (during the period from 2019 through 2020), including the OSHWC Code, envisaged a reformist move to harmonise, consolidate and rationalize India’s extant labour laws.
The OSHWC Code stands out as it regulates the physical and occupational conditions of work that directly affect the health, safety, and welfare of the workers. As a matter of fact, the Code became a law after getting the President’s assent in 2020 but it was more of a wishful thinking for several years as the State-level rules were delayed, the administration seemed to be inactive, and the difficulties in the coordination of a federal labour enforcement system were visible. The Code only started to have real legal force in 2025 when the rules were notified, digital registration portals were set up, and inspection mechanisms were put in place.The movement from declaring laws to applying them on the ground is the legal development hence the focus, and it is a signal of the reshaping of the labour protection norms in India.
The coming into force of the Code in 2025 has not just changed the way the regulators work; it has changed the whole labour governance situation. The Code, by making statutory obligations on employers, giving institutional forms to worker participation, and setting up digital compliance tools, influences the worker’s perception of safety at the workplace and the employer’s handling of risk. Besides, the Code is connected to the constitutional rights[4] under Articles 14, 19, and 21, thereby giving its importance the layer of fundamental rights and social justice.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES OF THE OSHWC CODE
The OSHWC Code brings together 13 important labour laws, including the Factories Act, 1948; Mines Act, 1952; Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979. It primarily aims at two things: on the one hand, to reduce regulatory overlap and complexity and, on the other, to ensure uniformity of occupational safety, health, and welfare standards. With the introduction of a single, integrated framework, the Code tries to give both employers and workers a clear picture, thus replacing the long, complicated, and difficult procedural compliance mechanisms with a simpler system.
One of the most distinguishing aspects of the Code is an amended definition of “establishment” that covers not only factories but also mines, construction sites, and establishments employing contract and inter-state migrant labour. Through such a widening of scope, the Code basically implies that it should regulate a broader range of workplaces, including those of the informal and gig economy that were barely regulated before. Plus, the Code brings in unified registration and licensing procedures and standardised safety protocols, which means a move away from different sector-specific statutes to a more holistic regulatory philosophy.
Nonetheless, the Code’s style of consolidation has attracted serious criticisms.On the one hand, standardisation will lower the red tape and make it easier to understand and follow. However, it might hide the characteristics and risks that are different in each sector. As an example, mining and construction by their nature have more dangerous activities than office-type jobs, still, the uniform limits set out in some clauses may not adequately address these differences.The conflict of streamlining versus deepening the level of protection is the main departure point of the legal significance and the potential problems of the Code.
2025 ENFORCEMENT: FROM LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO LEGAL REALITY
In fact, the implementation of the Code’s measures only took shape in 2025 when different States started announcing rules, opening digital compliance portals, and setting up inspection mechanisms, even though the Code had become law in 2020. The Code’s execution phase set forth several binding obligations for employers in the agreements with which they must: (i) carry out workplace risk assessments, (ii) provide protective equipment, (iii) carry out periodic health check-ups, and (iv) set up safety committees in designated establishments. These requests have a legal basis, which marks a change from the often-misinterpreted implementation of pre-existing laws.
The enforcement mechanism also includes the inspector-cum-facilitator model, which aims to balance enforcement with guidance for compliance. While the idea is to promote voluntary compliance, its actual effectiveness remains uncertain, especially in high-risk industries and informal workplaces where violations are common. Further, the shift towards a digital compliance system, including online registration and inspection records, reflects an effort to modernize labour regulation. However, the success of this system largely depends on the administrative capacity of State authorities and the extent to which workers and establishments have access to and familiarity with digital technology.
One of the main aspects of the 2025 enforcement is the uneven implementation of the Code across the different States. On the one hand, States with strong administrative infrastructure and motivated labour departments have been able to effectively make the Code of Labour Laws operational, while others are lagging behind. Such an uneven practice can be challenged on the basis of the constitutional right to equality enshrined in Article 14, since it would seem that workers’ rights to safe working conditions should be uniform everywhere in the country. Hence, the federal nature of labour law enforcement becomes a key aspect of the Code’s judicial consideration.
IMPACT ON WORKPLACE SAFETY AND EMPLOYER LIABILITY
The rollout of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC Code) continues to impact the work environment in India, especially in the organised sectors. It is becoming the norm for employers to think of occupational safety as their ongoing responsibility rather than a perfunctory measure for when the inspectors show up. Besides the onto single code, the Law encourages uniform safety standards, internal monitoring mechanisms, and greater accountability at the enterprise level.
For workers in general, and contract workers and inter-state migrant workers in particular, the Code is a recognition of their right to safe working conditions. Bringing these groups within the ambit of the statutory framework underscores the point that workplace safety is a matter for all employees, not just permanent ones. Such an understanding is in line with the Supreme Court ruling on the right to life under Article 21 in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[5] case, where decent working conditions were equated with human dignity.
India’s labour market is predominantly informal, with a large section of workers engaged in contract-based, seasonal, and inter-State migrant employment. The OSHWC Code attempts to address this reality by placing responsibility on the government to create a national database for unorganised workers and by prescribing minimum welfare measures such as travel allowances, accommodation, and medical facilities. These provisions reflect a positive step towards bringing informal workers within the scope of formal labour protection.
However, the practical implementation of these measures continues to face serious challenges. Migrant workers often struggle with language barriers, lack awareness of their legal rights, and find it difficult to access grievance redressal mechanisms. The judiciary has repeatedly emphasised that legislative intent alone is insufficient if enforcement remains weak, as highlighted in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984). The experience during the 2025 rollout further revealed gaps in inter-State coordination and digital accessibility, indicating that statutory reforms must be supported by strong administrative capacity and sustained outreach efforts.
The change to an “Inspector-cum-Facilitator” model also has an impact on the work environment. Although the new method seeks to enhance cooperative compliance and reduce adversarial regulation, it may end up loosening the control over sectors with a low bargaining power. Its ultimate viability will be judged on the basis of facilitation being supported by a certain level of enforcement.
In general, the impact of the OSH Code on the workplace setting is that of a slow evolution rather than a sudden change. It lays down a stronger legal basis for occupational safety but its success in the field still largely depends on implementation, enforcement, and worker empowerment.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND JUDICIAL DIMENSIONS [6]
Labour welfare in India has its foundation in the Constitution. The Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39, 41, and 42, speak about the need for humane working conditions and social security for workers. Over time, the judiciary has interpreted these principles along with Article 21 to widen the scope of the right to life. The Supreme Court, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), highlighted that the right to livelihood is closely connected to human dignity. This judgment helped in recognising that safe and dignified working conditions form an important part of the right to life[7].
The OSHWC Code, set to take effect in 2025, supports this constitutional vision by outlining safety and welfare responsibilities. However, the inspector-cum-facilitator model may face judicial review if it leads to insufficient enforcement. Courts are expected to ensure that regulatory flexibility does not undermine the constitutional rights of workers, especially those in high-risk or informal sectors.
EASE OF DOING BUSINESS AND THE REGULATORY BALANCE
The OSHWC Code is consistent with other recent policy developments which seek to minimize regulatory burden and promote business friendly environment. The facilities of single window registration, digital inspections and simplified compliance reporting are aimed by the State to minimize administrative burden and to take formalisation forward. To the extent that these reforms are desirable for improving the economy, we have a trade-off between efficiency and protection.
Whilst simplification is to be welcomed, it should not come at the cost of undermining the rights and protection that workers already enjoy under EU law, and we can expect the courts to continue scrutinising this trade-off to ensure that economic arguments do not trump constitutional duties designed to protect health and well-being at work.
CONCLUSION
The OSHWC Code enforced in 2025 is essentially a landmark that will be remembered in the annals of India’s labour law as the point where the desired enactment of the law was made a reality with the power to enforce it. Among other things, the Code aims to harmonise labour regulation with worker welfare and safety, which are the worker’s fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. Its success is certainly linked to strong and fair enforcement, judicial monitoring as well as the identification and inclusion of those in the informal sector and migrants workers. The OSHWC Code, if implemented with due care will become prominent in the way labour is protected in India, leading for safer working environments and smooth exercise of employment rights effectively. In contrast, due to implementation gaps fails to bring further changes.
REFERENCES
- The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, enacted as part of India’s labour law consolidation exercise.
- The Code on Social Security, 2020, which seeks to extend social security benefits to organised as well as unorganised workers.
- The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, dealing with trade unions, standing orders and dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, which form the constitutional basis for labour welfare and workplace rights.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, where the Supreme Court recognised humane working conditions as an integral part of the right to life.
- People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235, emphasising the State’s obligation to enforce labour welfare legislation effectively.
- Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42, which affirmed that occupational health and safety are components of fundamental rights.
- M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756, highlighting employer responsibility and the role of the State in labour protection.
- Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459, discussing the balance between economic considerations and labour rights.
- Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Annual Report 2024–25, outlining recent developments in labour law administration.
- Press Information Bureau, Government of India, releases on labour codes and ease of doing business reforms issued during 2025.
- NITI Aayog, discussion papers on labour market reforms and regulatory simplification in India, 2024.
- Upendra Baxi, writings on labour rights and constitutional governance, published in the Journal of the Indian Law Institute.
- Surya Deva, scholarly work on State obligations in regulating business and protecting labour rights, published in the NUJS Law Review.
- Vikram Shroff, commentary on India’s new labour codes and their practical implications, published in the SCC Journal.
- International Labour Organization, reports on occupational safety and health standards and their relevance to developing economies.
- World Bank policy notes on labour regulation reforms and ease of doing business in India.
- Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, official statements and updates on the implementation status of labour codes (2025).
[1] The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, No. 37 of 2020 (India)
[2] Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
[3] The Code on Social Security, 2020, No. 36 of 2020 (India).
[4] Constitution of India, arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21.
[5] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
[6] People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235.
[7] Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
