BETWEEN CODIFICATION AND CONFLICT:A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947AND THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE, 2020
Keywords:
Industrial Relations Code 2020; Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Labour Law Reform; Retrenchment Threshold; Dispute Resolution Mechanisms; Comparative Labour JurisprudenceAbstract
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the history of post-independence industrial relations in India. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which for more than 70 years had been the main law in the field of dispute settlement between capital and labour, has been merged and significantly recast into a unified statutory framework incorporating the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. This paper aims at a systematic comparative legal examination of the two legislative regimes in terms of their definition, the institutional dispute resolution mechanisms, threshold-based protections and implications for worker rights and industrial harmony. Using a doctrinal approach based on statutory interpretation, judicial precedent and secondary sources, the research explores how far the move from the old regime to the new one is a step forward for labour protection and how far it is a structural adjustment to accommodate flexibility for the employer. The analysis shows that while the Code brings welcome innovations such as fixed-term employment recognition, bi-partite forums and grievance redressal committees, the increase in the threshold for prior government permission for retrenchment and closure from one hundred to three hundred workers is a clear sign of a reduction in job security for a large section of the organised workforce. The conclusions indicate that the consolidation of legislation, while convenient from an administrative standpoint, must not be used as a means of watering down substantive safeguards for workers, and that the Code requires carefully thought-out changes to ensure that it serves its constitutionally prescribed purpose of ensuring justice, social equity and permanent industrial peace.
References
1. INDIA CONST. arts. 38, 39, 41, 42, 43A.
2. S.C. SRIVASTAVA, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND LABOUR LAWS 1–12 (6th ed. 2012).
3. SECOND NAT'L COMM'N ON LAB., REPORT OF THE SECOND NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR 7–15 (2002).
4. SRIVASTAVA, supra note 2, at 45–60.
5. O.P. MALHOTRA, THE LAW OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 1–22 (6th ed. 2004).
6. V.G. GOSWAMI, LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS 1–18 (11th ed. 2021).
7. SECOND NAT'L COMM'N ON LAB., supra note 3, at 1–20.
8. Kamala Sankaran & Ruchi Sanghvi, Flexibility in the Labour Market: Recent Labour Law Reforms in India, 39 INDIAN J. INDUS. RELS. 224, 226–30 (2003).
9. Babu Mathew, Labour Law and the Informal Economy: The Missing Link, 47 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 58, 60–63 (2012).
10. ILO Convention (No. 87) Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, July 9, 1948, 68 U.N.T.S. 17; ILO Convention (No. 98) Concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively, July 1, 1949, 96 U.N.T.S. 257.
11. MARK FREEDLAND & NICOLA KOUNTOURIS, THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF PERSONAL WORK RELATIONS 89–112 (2011).
12. Simon Deakin & Frank Wilkinson, Rights vs. Efficiency? The Economic Case for Transnational Labour Standards, 23 INDUS. L.J. 289, 294–99 (1994).
13. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, s. 2(j) (India).
14. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Bd. v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 (India).
15. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, s. 2(p) (India).
16. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, S. 2(s) (India); The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, § 2(zr) (India).
17. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, S. 2(o) (India).
18. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, S. 2(k) (India).
19. Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Mgmt. of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 (India).
20. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, S. 2(za) (India).
21. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, S. 3 (India).
22. Id. S. 4–7B.
23. Rajasthan State Road Transp. Corp. v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 (India).
24. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, S. 4 (India).
25. Id. S. 44.
26. Id. S. 16.
27. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, s. 22–23 (India).
28. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, S. 62–65 (India).
29. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593 (India)
30. The Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, S. 25M, 25N, 25O (India).
31. Excel Wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224 (India).
32. Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 1 (India).
33. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, § 77 (India).
34. MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMP., GOV'T OF INDIA, ANNUAL SURVEY OF INDUSTRIES 2018–19, at 42–45 (2021).
35. Sankaran & Sanghvi, supra note 8, at 232–35.
36. INDIA CONST. arts. 42, 43A.
37. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 (India).
38. People's Union for Democratic Rts. v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 (India).
39. The Industrial Relations Code, No. 35 of 2020, § 2(o) (India).
