The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) first convention in 1919 established an eight-hour workday and 48-hour workweek, aiming to balance productivity with worker welfare. A century later, India, an ILO founding member, grapples with a complex labour rights landscape that often prioritises economic growth over worker welfare.

India ratified the ILO’s Hours of Work Convention in 1921, embedding its principles in laws like the Factories Act of 1948, and in the soon to be enforced Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code. However, the ILO’s ability to enforce its conventions is limited, relying primarily on moral persuasion rather than sanctions.

This became more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, where several Indian states suspended labour laws, extending shifts to 12 hours and weekly limits to 72 hours, contradicting ILO guidelines. In 2024, the State of Karnataka attempted to implement 14-hour daily shifts for IT workers, while the State of Tamil Nadu proposed 12-hour factory schedules to attract electronics manufacturers. These decisions, framed as economic necessities overlook ILO findings that not only do extended working hours increase health risks and workplace injuries, but also hinders worker productivity, which declines after 48 weekly work hours. Corporate leaders have also contributed to normalising excessive work hours, with prominent figures calling for 70-hour and 90-hour workweeks.

Labour laws in India primarily protect blue-collar workers, and not those in supervisory or managerial roles. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines a ‘workman’ to exclude these positions. While traditional industrial workers receive overtime protections under the Factories Act, 1948, managers and IT staff do not. Contract workers are governed by a separate legislation,  which lacks basic benefits such as provident funds, insurance, and protection against arbitrary termination due to limited enforcement and statutory safeguards that typically apply only to permanent employees.

Indian judiciary has occasionally intervened, with the Supreme Court striking down the State of Gujarat’s 12-hour factory shifts in 2023. Grassroots movements, such as IT employee unions in Karnataka, have also achieved some success in opposing regressive policies. However, these victories remain exceptions. Some positive developments offer hope. Kerala’s 2024 initiative to limit gig worker shifts to 10 hours demonstrates that alternatives to excessive work hours are possible. Lessons can be learnt from countries like Japan and South Korea, who once known for extreme work cultures, have also implemented legislation to cap overtime and mandate health breaks.

In any case, India’s relationship with ILO conventions is complex. India has not ratified critical conventions such as Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Convention No. 98 on Collective Bargaining. The Ministry of Labour and Employment have expressly stated that ILO guidelines are seen as non-binding, with India being cautious in ratifying ILO conventions to avoid any legally binding obligations. This selective compliance weakens unions and limits workers’ ability to challenge exploitative practices. The ILO’s 2024 Employment Report criticised India’s lax enforcement of labour standards, but the government often dismisses such critiques from the ILO.

Addressing India’s labour rights challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, since the enforcement of labour laws are a challenge in the country due to complex regulations, limited resources, a large informal sector, corruption, and weak penalties. The ILO can potentially step in here. While the ILO has limited enforcement mechanisms for addressing labour violations, it can take some actions based on past precedents. When a country fails to comply with ratified conventions, the ILO can establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate persistent and serious violations. This high-level investigative procedure has been used 14 times to date. In extreme cases, the ILO Governing Body can invoke Article 33 of the ILO Constitution, which allows recommending actions to the International Labour Conference to secure compliance. This was first used in 2000 against Myanmar for widespread forced labour violations. While the ILO lacks direct sanctioning power, it can apply diplomatic and reputational pressure through its supervisory mechanisms. However, the effectiveness of such measures remains limited.

The ILO’s founding vision of dignity and productivity coexisting remains relevant. Realising this vision in India demands more than just laws; it requires a collective commitment from government, industry, and the society to prioritise worker well-being alongside economic growth. Only by doing so can India ensure that its economic success truly benefits all its citizens.