Four Labour Codes, One Bad Idea: Why April 1, 2026 is too soon to implement the new Codes
The government's plan to implement all four Labour Codes simultaneously is legally shoddy, democratically suspect, and premature. Here are twelve reasons why.
K R Shyam Sundar
31 March 2026
THE UNION GOVERNMENT is reportedly set to implement the four Labour Codes — the Code on Wages, 2019 (‘CoW’), the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (‘IRC’), the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Code (‘OSH’), and the Code on Social Security, 2020 (‘CSS’) — on April 1, 2026. It should not.
These Codes are the product of a decade-long consolidation of 29 labour laws, culminating in legislation passed between 2019 and 2020. That timeline alone should give pause. Laws of this consequence, affecting hundreds of millions of workers, deserve more than a decade of legislative inattention followed by a rushed implementation deadline.
The case against proceeding rests on twelve distinct grounds.
Incomplete and inconsistent rule-making
The Codes legislate less clauses and leave numerous procedural and substantive clauses to the rule-making process. As appropriate governments, the Union and the state governments need to make rules. There already exist substantial differences between the Union and the states’ rules and among the states. These will lead to chaotic labour code implementation. The IRC, for example, leaves the scope of collective bargaining entirely to the rules. The absence of synchronisation of rules will mean potential for conflicts and litigation before the dust implementation has even settled. Where one state may permit a broader scope of collective bargaining and another a narrower one, the same company operating across two states will find itself bound by collective agreements of entirely different reach. This is a recipe for inequity, worker resentment, and deteriorating industrial relations outcomes.
In the name of uniformity, definitions of critical variables such as workers, wages, and the likes, have been bluntly standardised across all four Codes.
Clumsy legal construction
Law-making has never been so clumsy as the present Codes have shown. For example, the IRC’s removal of Labour Courts while retaining Industrials Tribunal is a logic difficult to fathom, as the new clauses for compulsory adjudication are poorly drafted. The tribunals now comprise a judicial and an administrative members with the latter’s qualification being, at minimum, a Joint Secretary. In cases of disagreement between the two, a judicial member from another Tribunal is added, and the award follows the majority.
Whether a senior bureaucrat, however accomplished, possesses the labour jurisprudence or the time to adjudicate industrial disputes is a question the lawmakers did not ask. The administrative framework of labour regulation in a country as vast as India remains inadequate, and it is fair to say that many judicial bodies constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) have not been functioning at optimal levels.
A failure of social dialogue
India has ratified the ILO Convention No. 44, the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 which requires the ratified member countries to ‘meaningfully and effectively’ consult employers’ and workers’ representatives on matters of industrial relations. It has been the undivided and highly vocal opinion of all the central trade unions (‘CTUs’) including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (‘BMS’) that the Union government did not effectively consult with the trade unions; if at all, it did, it was symbolic – contrary to the claims of the Labour Ministry. Sincere and effective social dialogue results in productive outcomes and the outcomes bear the stamp of participation and consensus. It is democratic. Even if the Codes were passed, there is still considerable scope for social dialogue to improve on the legislated Codes.
Passed without parliamentary debate
All four Labour Codes were passed without any discussion in both the houses of the Parliament. The opposition parties had boycotted the proceedings over the Farm Laws. The Codes were passed without a single amendment even from the treasury benches. In a pluralistic democracy, legislation of this breadth warrants robust parliamentary scrutiny. It takes courage and conviction in the democratic processes for any government to do so. If the government is confident in the soundness of these Codes, it should welcome that scrutiny.