For instance, if a worker employed in an establishment has a grievance relating to working conditions, safety standards, or any other matter governed by the Code, the first step is to ascertain which government has jurisdiction over that establishment. If the Central Government is the appropriate government, the matter would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of authorities appointed by the Central Government, such as the office of the Central Labour Commissioner. Conversely, if the State Government is the appropriate government, the worker would be required to approach the authorities constituted under the concerned State Labour Department. Thus, the definition of "appropriate government" acts as the jurisdictional key that determines the competent authority responsible for administration, enforcement, and dispute resolution under the Code. This determination, however, is not always as straightforward as it appears, particularly where contractors are involved.

Assume, for instance, that a private contractor registered in Uttar Pradesh undertakes a contract to supply security personnel to a coal mine owned and operated by the Central Government, and is consequently required to obtain a licence under the Code. The contractor may presume that, being a private entity registered within the State, it must approach the Labour Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh for the requisite licence. This presumption, however, does not hold true. Since mines fall within the Central Government's jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(d)(i), and the definition further extends to "establishment of a contractor for the purposes of such establishment", the contractor's establishment is also deemed to fall under the Central Government's jurisdiction, notwithstanding its private character or the State in which it is registered. The contractor would therefore be required to obtain the licence from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) situated within Uttar Pradesh, and not from the State Labour Department.

The examples above demonstrate that determining the “appropriate government” is not merely a technical exercise under the Code. Whether a worker seeks redressal of a grievance or a contractor applies for a licence, identifying the correct government is often the first step under the statutory framework.

At first reading, the definition provided under the OSH Code,2020 may suggest an explicit division of jurisdiction. In other words, establishments covered under the Code appear to fall either under the regulation of the Central Government or the State Government. However, a closer reading of Section 2(1)(d)(i) reveals a potential drafting ambiguity. The definition includes “banking company or any insurance company (by whatever name called) established by a Central Act” among the establishments that fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. On a plain reading, the provision may appear to place all insurance companies within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. A closer grammatical reading, however, suggests otherwise.

Two possible interpretations emerge from this ambiguity. The first is that the jurisdiction for the private insurance companies has shifted to the State Government. The second interpretation of the definition is more concerning as under this reading the private insurance companies may not fall within the scope of either clause (i) or clause (ii), thereby creating a jurisdictional vacuum under the Code.

Interpretation One: A Silent Jurisdictional Shift?

One possible interpretation is that the OSH Code has silently shifted jurisdiction with respect to private insurance companies. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Code places certain establishments within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. These establishments include any insurance company (by whatever name called) established by a Central Act. As per the Rule of the Last Antecedent (an interpretative principle), qualifying words or phrases are ordinarily taken to modify the words or phrases immediately preceding them rather than those more remote^[3]. By applying the same rule, the qualifying phrase “established by a Central Act” attaches to the immediately preceding term, namely “insurance company.” In other words, the Central Government's jurisdiction under this clause extends only to insurance companies established through a Central Act and not private insurance companies. Accordingly, the private insurance companies would instead come within clause (ii), which assigns jurisdiction to the State Government where the establishment is situated. This leads to the first possible interpretation that the private insurance companies fall under the jurisdiction of the State Governments rather than the Central Government in the OSH Code,2020. However, such a shift would represent a significant regulatory change. The absence of any explanation raises the possibility that the phrase “established by a Central Act” reflects a drafting oversight rather than a deliberate policy decision. If so, the ambiguity may ultimately require legislative clarification by Parliament.

Interpretation Two: The OSH Code's Blind Spot

The second interpretation is more problematic. It raises the possibility that private insurance companies may not fall clearly within the scope of either clause (i) or clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d). If insurance companies that are not established by a Central Act fall outside the scope of clause (i), the question then arises whether such establishments fall under clause (ii) automatically. Clause (ii) gives jurisdiction to the State Government in relation to factories, motor transport undertakings, plantations, newspaper establishments and establishments relating to beedi and cigar. It also includes the phrase “including the establishments not specified in clause (i).” At first glance, this phrase may appear to operate as a residuary clause covering all establishments not falling under clause (i). However, a closer grammatical reading suggests otherwise. The phrase “including the establishments not specified in clause (i)” appears immediately after “establishments relating to beedi and cigar,” without any comma or structural separation. Therefore, the qualifying phrase attaches only to the immediately preceding category namely establishments relating to beedi and cigar resulting in a jurisdictional vacuum for all private companies^[4]. Hence, private insurance companies may find themselves in a position where neither the Central Government nor the State Government can be clearly identified as the “appropriate Government” under the Code.

Earlier labour statutes generally avoided such interpretive gaps through clearer drafting. They typically followed a two-part jurisdictional structure: certain establishments were expressly placed under the Central Government, while all remaining establishments were attributed to the State Government through a residuary clause. For instance, the definition of “appropriate government” under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 places establishments such as banking and insurance companies under the jurisdiction of the Central Government, while explicitly assigning all other establishments to the State Government. Similarly, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 adopts a comparable approach by providing that establishments falling outside the Central Government's jurisdiction would automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the State Government. Such drafting ensured that every establishment clearly fell under either the Central Government or the State Government.

The OSH Code, however, does not clearly adopt such a structure in the definition of appropriate government. The absence of such clarity in the Code therefore appears to be a drafting lapse rather than a deliberate policy choice, particularly since there is no explicit legislative explanation for shifting jurisdiction from the Central Government to the State Governments in relation to private insurance companies.

The analysis above shows that the wording of Section 2(1)(d) of the OSH Code creates an interpretive difficulty in determining the position of private insurance companies within the jurisdictional framework of the Code. A strict reading of the phrase “insurance company… established by a Central Act” raises two possible outcomes: either the Code implicitly shifts jurisdiction from the Central Government to the State Governments, or it leaves private insurance companies outside both clauses, thereby creating a jurisdictional vacuum. The Judiciary is unlikely to fill this vacuum through interpretation, as a legislative casus omissus cannot ordinarily be supplied by the judicial interpretative process^[5]. The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts must administer the law as they find it and cannot twist the clear language of the statute to remedy perceived hardship^[6]. The matter would therefore require legislative clarification rather than judicial reconstruction. Section 132 of the Code cannot resolve this issue either, as any attempt by the Central Government to expand the scope of clause (i) or clause (ii) through an order would alter the meaning of the provision and render it inconsistent with the Code, which Section 132 itself does not permit.

When the competent authority itself becomes unclear, the implementation of the statutory framework becomes difficult in practice. The Code thus produces “a paradox: insurers themselves remain uninsured” when it comes to identifying the authority responsible for enforcing the OSH Code.

1. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 5321(E), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii) (Nov. 21, 2025), https://www.labour.gov.in/offerings/schemes-and-services/details/labour-codes-gzNzQzMtQWa ↑

2. Ministry of Labour & Employment, Notification No. G.S.R. 345(E), Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026, Gazette of India, pt. II, § 3(i) (May 9, 2026), [Gazette ID No. CG-DL-E-09052026-272379]. ↑

3. Anoop M.S. v. State of Kerala, 2017:KER:1888, ¶ 50 ↑

4. Devesh, “Is Definition Of 'Appropriate Government' Under OSH Code, Appropriate?” LiveLaw (8 December 2025), available at: https://www.livelaw.in/articles/osh-code-appropriate-government-clause-ii-ambiguity-analysis-312555 ↑

5. Union of India v. Priyankan Sharan, 2008:INSC:1022, ¶ 23 ↑

6. Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, 2012:INSC:509, ¶ 23 ↑