Do The New Labour Codes Make Working Hours More Arduous?

India's labour law reforms have generated extensive debate, particularly on the issue of working hours. A recurring concern is whether the new Labour Codes make working conditions more demanding for employees. While public discourse often highlights the flexibility introduced by the Codes, a closer legal examination reveals a more nuanced shift—one that recalibrates both work-hour norms and wage obligations.

Under the erstwhile Factories Act, 1948, working hours were governed by a structured statutory framework. Weekly working hours were capped at 48, while daily working hours could extend up to nine. The law also imposed a spread-over limit, ensuring that the total period of work, inclusive of rest intervals, did not exceed twelve hours in a day. Overtime obligations were triggered only when daily work exceeded nine hours or weekly work crossed the 48-hour threshold. In effect, a nine-hour workday was legally permissible without attracting additional wage liability.

The enforcement of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC Code) marks a notable shift in regulatory philosophy. The Code prescribes a maximum of eight working hours per day, and any work beyond eight hours automatically attracts overtime wages. This represents a significant departure from the earlier regime. What was previously a standard nine-hour shift without additional financial implications now carries statutory wage consequences. While the weekly cap of 48 hours remains aligned with earlier law, the daily threshold has been tightened

The distinction between the two frameworks may be summarised comparatively

Beyond the reduction in daily working thresholds, an equally significant transformation lies in the scope of applicability. The Factories Act was confined to factories. In contrast, the OSHWC Code adopts a far broader regulatory reach, extending its provisions to establishments across sectors. Offices, shops, IT/ITES entities, and commercial establishments now operate within a unified compliance structure. Work-hour regulation, once largely factory-centric, has become universally relevant across organised sectors.

The narrative of “flexibility” under the Labour Codes therefore requires careful scrutiny. While establishments may explore compressed workweeks or varied shift arrangements, the statutory ceiling of eight hours per day remains determinative for wage purposes. Flexibility in scheduling does not dilute overtime obligations; rather, it intensifies the financial implications of extended workdays. Any deviation from the eight-hour norm carries mandatory wage consequences.

The Code on Wages, 2019 further strengthens this regulatory framework by mandating overtime payment without prescribing any wage ceiling. Earlier wage legislation often applied only up to specified salary thresholds. The new framework removes such limitations and extends protections universally. Notably, the legislation employs the term “employees,” thereby broadening coverage beyond traditional classifications such as “workers.”

The cumulative effect of these reforms is not necessarily the extension of working hours, but the tightening of thresholds governing extended work. A nine-hour shift, once legally routine, now entails statutory wage implications. Employers accustomed to longer daily schedules must either restructure work arrangements or absorb increased overtime liabilities. From the employee's perspective, the Codes strengthen wage protection by ensuring compensation for additional work. From the employer's standpoint, however, the operational and financial impact is substantial.

Ultimately, the Labour Codes do not make working hours more arduous in terms of duration. Rather, they redefine the economics of extended work. The debate therefore shifts from the question of longer hours to one of stricter compliance, broader applicability, and expanded wage liability.

Authors are practicing Advocates before High Court of Madras. Views are personal.