Monday November 2, 02:36 AM

Source: Indian Express Finance

It is hard to explain though, why a plethora of labour laws, 150 at state and 50 at centre are still inadequate and inefficient to please the myriad t

By Dhruv Nijhawan
September 9, 2009 striking pilots of Jet Airways held the country to ransom. This was done in the shadow of what we call our labour laws. Laws are supposed to be an instrument in the hands of the state to protect the rights of the population. But now, (in the context of labour laws) we need to ask a question Are they really delivering on the ground ? The answer to this question is a crude No irrespective of whom this question is asked to, of course for different reasons. It is hard to explain though, why a plethora of labour laws, 150 at state and 50 at Centre are still inadequate and inefficient to please the myriad trade unions. The red flag bearers should understand that resist and complain does not deliver but change and effort does. Some of our labour laws are disparities in themselves, for instance, The Workmen Act which equates a pilot who gets Rs 3.5 lakh a month to what we call a worker who earns a meager Rs 3,500 in that period. These workers can form unions and go on strike which is what happened on 9th September and the tremors were felt not just by the management but by the country. In a democracy, strikes cannot be avoided but there should be a democratic way to it like strike ballots in Britain and Germany. Our labour laws are outdated, let us accept it. The last to be an act was the contract law in 1970 and our economy has gone through major transitions after that. Even the World Bank has criticised the complexity, the lack of modernisation and flexibility in the Indian labour regulations. One of the amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act makes it mandatory for a firm employing more than 100 workers, to take the permission of the government before retrenching them. This law in the hindsight may appear to protect the jobs of the workers but job preservation is not job creation. Moreover, industries being apprehensive regarding problems of offloading the workers in future, do not employ them in the first place. Even after an 8% GDP growth, our employment growth has gone down from 2% to 1%. No one is advocating a hire and fire policy . But if a firm can employ workers in peak seasons and can take care of them in not so good periods nobody should have any qualms over it. Of course, definitions have to be worked out so that it is a win-win situation for everybody. Change in archaic labour laws has been on the reforms agenda for quite some time now but still it seems a remote possibility even after the Prime Minister himself advocated for it. These stringent regulations, with the pseudo protectionism that they offer, are beneficial to only those who if given a chance, may tie even the thoughts with the red flag. The solution can be there for sure provided we have an open-minded debate and do not brush it under the carpet; otherwise the problems like the jet showdown might raise its ugly head again. The author is from the 2009-11 batch of DSM and can be reached at nijhawan.dhruv@gmail.com