The History Of State Legislations On Labour And Contemporary Labour Codes

In the history of capitalist production, it is imperative that the formation/ existence of a ‘norm’ pertaining to labour, whether that concerns working day, voting rights or maternity leaves, are all achieved through the struggles between collective labour and collective capital— a perennial process. It is then to question how this antagonistic relationship of collective labour and collective capital, and the struggle, have taken forms, moving with time, shaped and reshaped ‘norms’? It is also here that the role of the state and policies is to be decoded, along with the current situation of collective labour and collective capital. 

Moving away from relying on normative historical methods of understanding the chronological time, to historicising times through historical thinking— truly determines the communities’ cultural and social makeup. Through this methodological intervention, one can thereby explain the increased dependence on the cyclical and commodified labour (=waged work), in contemporary capitalist production. Furthermore, the increased sub-contracting work in the Indian factories signals the production to be heavily dependent on on-demand labour, which can be explained. Therefore, like everywhere (+unwaged work), even in capitalist production, the circulation is conditional to the dependence on the marginalised temporalities, here it is that of labour and a temporality rooted in social production— and is to be studied such. On a much broader conceptualisation, chronological time pertaining to labour, is rudimentary and requires no inquiry. For instance, in the initial paragraph, it is a corollary, that labour must be able to reproduce her labour power every day, in order to sell it again— the struggle for a “normal” working day is against the unlimited extension of the working day, itself. Therefore, the struggle here is to be historicised through the temporality of social production or via historicising times, rather than in chronological or linear fashion. 

Marx and Engles, through their work on the Asiatic mode of production, singled out the importance of the cognitive problem associated with understanding the society and economy of India, as differently structured from that of the rest of Europe. And, it is here, they had envisioned the possibility of capitalist development under British imperialism. Although the cavities in the analysis weren't done away with, leaving this possibility to be merely abstract, nonetheless, at this juncture, capitalist development has grown rampant over time, regardless of anomalies. Here in this article I argue precisely that, and bring out the shades of the colonial State, imperial capitalism, and tie it to the discourse on the contemporary labour codes in India. The power of collective capital expanding, supported by the inherent nature of the state, according to Leninist principles, as “ a tool of class oppression” which is bourgeois in the Indian context. Furthermore, Poulantzasian articulation, describes state to be objectively reproducing the capitalist relations, thereby facilitating the process of capital accumulation—- ‘capital theoretical,’ like that of Miliband’s. Conversely, the ‘class theoretical’ discourse brings out the ideological and political domination of the state— the neo-Gramscian turn. This approach gives primacy to the class forces (=organisation among dominant class and dominated class —explained by—> nature of ideological hegemony) in determining the conditions of capital accumulation. To explain the role of state and its intervention, it is reasonable to integrate both ‘class-theoretical’ and ‘capital-theoretical’ understanding.

The history of labour movements in India finds its successful origin in the multi-nuclei setup of industrial towns and centres— Calcutta, Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Mumbai. The ‘public presence of labour,’ as conceptualised by Prabhu Mohapatra as the ‘political power of the organised labour movement,’ witnessed a sharp decline in contemporary times. For him, the explanation for this decline is the massive rise of the informal sector— rampant informality. The state’s role in the construction of labour relations has to be decoded, as it leads to this massive informality— unlike the conventional wisdom of the mainstream development studies scholarship (of miserabilist and evolutionary perspectives). Moulding of the labour relations thereby facilitating the capital accumulation is to be understood not merely through the Poulantzasian account of reproduced capitalist relations, but rather through the neo-Gramscian articulation of understanding the nature of ideological hegemony, as well. It is then, precisely then, that class formation and consciousness lead the discourse in understanding the process of capital accumulation. The contemporary Indian state, through this filter, is then not merely reproducing capitalist relations, but rather is fundamentally employing the ideological hegemony of capital-centricity, in its interventions. And this process is not just for this time but for all times; it is evolving. Therefore, the state’s reproduction of the capitalist relation along with the ideological hegemony has to be considered while studying the interventions in labour relations. The state at this juncture is the external agent regulating the capital-labour relations—- which, in its absence would appear to be naturally antagonistic. 

The history of State legislations can be mapped from the late colonial period to the contemporary. Prior to the nineteenth century, any subject concerning labour was not independent of the methodological lens of land, caste and family axis of pre-colonial regulations. Labour became the principal axis of analysis, as a separate sphere in State regulation, in later years. The colonial State witnessed multiple sets of regulations pertaining to later, in the nineteenth century. These include the Regulation X of 1811, Workman's Breach of Contract Act of 1859, Master and Servants Law of 1879 and Indian Factory Act of 1881, critically detailed out below. 

Regulation X of 1811

The Act prohibited slave importation into British India; nonetheless it would be optimistic to assume absence of servitude in the contract. The free labour, in this term is solely juridical, the contracts, diverged from this principle of slavery, as it involved voluntary consent and hegemonically initiated the culture of work. Till date, true shades of this compromise continue coming to surface. The motivation of the act continued to get dissolved with several other acts and by-laws, maintaining a similar structure of servitude. Through the first workman and journeyman by-law of 1814, the domestic servants continued to get reprimanded when they left their master’s employment, with one to two months of imprisonment. Following this, another by-law in 1816, reprimanded workers and journeymen who seeked wage rise or were conspiring to do similar. Several such regulations and by-laws continued to support criminal prosecution of domestic servants in India. This was till the draft Penal Code of 1837, when Macaulay refuted the  special criminal breach Act.

Workman’s Breach of Contract Act of 1859 

In the mid nineteenth century, with the contractarian ideology propagated by the state and the draft of Penal Code in place, the breach of contract had to be dealt with. Although the criminal procedures weren’t carried out on domestic servants, and breach of contract were followed through civil procedures, wealthy associations of merchants and traders like Calcutta Tradesman’s Association demanded a simple criminal breach of contracts Act for the workers. The devised framework was the set of summary procedures for prosecution on workers breaching the contract, to be brought back to work or repay advances, otherwise they would be imprisoned for three months. The legislative department with their Contractarian ideology inherent, readily accepted this plea of tradesmen favouring the capitalist relation. The Act was extended to all parts of India by the 1870s, till it was abolished in 1926. The colonial nature of the Act can be explained very well with its inheritance of the ‘legal culture of work’ in England. As it was in the West, in the East here, the absolute power lay with the masters in determining the nature and terms of the contract. Although for the collective capital, the ball was in their court, workers could free exit from the contract. In order to curb this down, the manufacturers in alignment with the colonial state’s ideology seeked to criminalise this practice. For the collective capital, the control was through the advances from the workers which would tie them to low wages and precarious working conditions. 

Penal Contract Laws

The implementation of penal contract laws beginning in 1865 constituted a pivotal moment in the historical trajectory of Assam's tea plantations, emblematic of broader capitalist dynamics within colonial India. These legislative measures, ostensibly crafted to manage labour costs and enforce discipline, effectively subjected labourers to protracted contractual obligations, thereby endowing plantation owners with formidable legal prerogatives, including the unilateral power to apprehend fleeing workers without judicial oversight. While overtly repressive, this coercive apparatus functioned as a linchpin in consolidating control over the plantation labour force, an important imperative for maintaining the profitability of capitalist enterprises through surplus exploitation, amidst fluctuating economic conditions.

The regulatory framework of labour relations underwent iterative modifications over the decades, apparently responsive to shifting difficulties in the labour market and capital’s requirement. The gradual phasing out of specialised labour statutes by 1915 denoted a transformative juncture, marking a discernible pivot towards alternative regulatory modalities. Throughout its operational tenure, however, the penal contract system in Assam performed a dual function under capitalist regime: firstly, curbing potential wage rise by tethering labour compensation to fixed, rather minimal thresholds for surplus exploitation; and secondly, curtailing labour mobility to ensure a stable, exploitable workforce, or technically a reserve army of labour, requisite for sustaining the uninterrupted expansion and profitability of the tea industry under British colonial hegemony.

This institutional framework, grounded in the coercion and immobilisation of labour, underscored the structural underpinnings of class domination, capitalist accumulation within the colonial tea sector and the role and ideology of the State. By circumscribing labour autonomy, these regulatory mechanisms not only perpetuated the subordination of the indigenous workforce but also cemented the plantation economy's dependence on disciplined and controllable labour force. Consequently, the penal contract system in Assam stands as a testament to the dialectical interplay between legal coercion, capitalist contingencies, and class-based exploitation within the colonial matrix of power and production.

The indenture laws in Assam, from 1882 to 1908, primarily targeted actions that disrupted labour recruitment. Remarkably absent were any provisions addressing actual work requirements or worker conditions, reflecting a legislative emphasis on controlling labour mobility and quashing dissent rather than ensuring productive or humane working conditions. This selective enforcement underscored the coercive nature of the indenture system, serving capitalist interests by maintaining a compliant and exploitable workforce crucial for plantation profitability through surplus exploitation of labour. By focusing on preventing labour mobility and punishing desertion, the laws perpetuated a hierarchical labour structure that prioritised control over labourers' movements and collective actions.  Overall, the indenture laws in Assam exemplified the State's role in enforcing conditions favourable to capitalist accumulation, prioritising stability and discipline over labour rights.

Factory Act of 1881

The genesis of factory legislation in India can be traced to the Factory Act XV of 1881, which epitomised the State's intervention in regulating capitalist exploitation of child labour. Although, in this variant of the State legislations, few reformary stances were taken, in detail explained below, the state’s ideology and structure remained the same. This legislation introduced several critical provisions aimed at mitigating the brutal conditions faced by child labourers in the industrial setup. Specifically, it prohibited the employment of children under seven years of age, restricted work hours for children under twelve to a maximum of nine hours per day, mandated four holidays per month for child workers, and banned the employment of children in particularly hazardous occupations. This early intervention reflects a rudimentary attempt to humanise the labour process and modes of exploitation within the capitalist mode of production.

The subsequent development in factory legislation extended these protections to women, reflecting a growing consciousness of the need to regulate labour conditions beyond child labour. In the decade following 1881, increasing attention was directed towards the conditions in Indian factories, both within India and in the metropole. The Bombay Government's appointment of a commission in 1884 to scrutinise factory conditions and Mr. Jones' 1887 report on Indian factories, prepared at the behest of Mr. Redgrave, Chief Inspector of Factories in England, underscores the transnational dimension of labour regulation under ‘imperial capitalism’. The 1891 Act, influenced by the Berlin International Labour Conference resolutions, marked an important legislative step, albeit with notable exceptions that reflected the imperatives of capital accumulation and industrial growth. This Act incorporated limits on child and female labour, but allowed for late night work for women in factories with proper shift systems, highlighting the tensions between labour regulation and industrial productivity– an act which I believe, is to escape the capital crisis.

The turn of the century witnessed a significant transformation in the conditions of factory labour, precipitated by the introduction of electric lighting in mills. This technological innovation facilitated extended work hours, exacerbating the exploitation of the working class. The resultant intensification of labour exploitation led to a public outcry and subsequent governmental intervention. The favourable market conditions in 1905 had prompted mill owners to extend work hours in electrically lit mills to fourteen and a half hours, with a single shift of workers. The ensuing public and press attention to these excessive work hours culminated in the Bombay Mill Owners' Association's resolution advocating a twelve-hour workday. However, the inability of the Association to enforce this resolution revealed the limitations of voluntary regulation in the face of capitalist competition and profit maximisation. The 1908 Factory Labour Commission's report highlighted the systemic nature of this exploitation and the ineffectiveness of voluntary compliance among mill owners.

In response to these deteriorating labour conditions, the Government of India appointed a series of commissions to investigate and recommend reforms. The inquiries conducted by these commissions, particularly the 1906 Committee led by Sir H. P. Freer Smith, and the subsequent 1907 Commission, underscored the adverse physical impact of long working hours on labourers. Despite the absence of comprehensive vital statistics, the Commission's observations revealed that factory operatives weighed significantly less than the average jail population, indicating the severe physical toll of factory labour. The Commission's recommendation to create a special class of 'young persons' and limit their working hours to prevent adult overwork was ultimately deemed administratively inconvenient by the Government of India, leading to the incorporation of direct hour restrictions in the Indian Factories Act of 1911.

The 1911 Act represented a pivotal moment in the trajectory of Indian industrial legislation, codifying significant protections for labourers. It prohibited the employment of women and children before 5:30 a.m. and after 7 p.m., limited children's work to seven hours a day and women's to eleven hours, and mandated periodic breaks and weekly holidays. Specific provisions for textile factories included restricting child labour to six hours per day, capping the use of mechanical and electrical power to twelve hours unless a shift system was employed, and imposing a maximum twelve-hour workday for all employees within designated hours unless approved shifts were utilised. This legislation can be seen as a state-mediated effort to ameliorate the exploitative conditions inherent in capitalist production, reflecting a dialectical response to the class struggle between capital and labour. The Factory Act of 1911 thus marked a significant advance in industrial legislation in India, with potential implications for labour wages and the productive capacity of the mills, embodying a complex interplay of regulatory intervention and capitalist imperatives.

Contemporary Reflections on the Labour Codes of 2020 

The contemporary developments in the labour laws have challenged the historical movements and struggles carried out by the Indian workers for several years. Several landmarking victories of workers are threatened by the nexus of the current ruling corporate-fascist government. Under the antagonist relationship between labour and capital, with the power of capital raging, raging like never before, labour has never been this precarious— and this hereby, is the project of the ruling capitalist regime. 

The transformation of India's labour laws into four new Labor Codes in 2020 has significantly altered the regulatory framework governing employment relations. Through a Neo-Gramscian lens, these changes can be viewed as part of a broader hegemonic project where the state acts as an agent of capital, suppressing labour movements and undermining class consciousness to facilitate capital accumulation. A Neo-Gramscian framework emphasises the importance of ideology and cultural hegemony in maintaining capitalist dominance. Brass (2003) critiques the notion of "unfree labour" in India, arguing that recognizing distinct forms of labour exploitation is essential to understanding how the state and capital maintain control over the working class. The state's policies often create conditions that blur the lines between free and unfree labour, thereby perpetuating systems of exploitation that benefit capital accumulation. By undermining the distinction between different forms of labour, the state effectively suppresses labour movements and diminishes class consciousness.

From a Neo-Gramscian perspective, the state's role in curbing labour movements is pivotal in maintaining the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class. Nair (2009) provides an analysis of the Chhattisgarh Liberation Front's labor movement, which faced severe repression from both the state and industrialists. This movement's use of both disruptive and non-disruptive tactics highlights the dual capacities in which labor acts—as a radical trade union against capitalists and as a social movement engaging with the state. The repression faced by these movements underscores the state's ideology and role in maintaining capitalist hegemony and suppressing proletarian resistance. Economic liberalisation has further intensified labour struggles, as illustrated by Uba (2008). The study on protests against privatisation from 1991 to 2003 demonstrates how neoliberal policies have fragmented labour movements across Indian states. This fragmentation is partly due to the state's support for neoliberal reforms, which prioritise market interests over workers' rights, thereby facilitating capital accumulation while weakening labour's collective power.

Historically, labour movements in India have faced significant challenges due to internal divisions and state repression. Roychowdhury and Sarkar (2021) analyse the political roots of recent labour law changes, emphasising how neoliberal reforms have increased labour repression. The state's use of legal and extra-legal means to curb dissent reflects a broader strategy to protect capitalist accumulation by weakening the organisational capacity of labour movements. This repression has further deepened divisions within the working class, impeding the development of a unified class consciousness.

Historically, the backbone of India’s labour movement has been in the public sector and organised sector, which refers to all non-agricultural enterprises with ten or more employees. Despite the appearance of political strength, India’s system of industrial relations never gave unions the right to collectively bargain with employers, and public sector wages and conditions were effectively fixed by the state. Trade unions are diversifying their strategies and spatial relations to overcome historic limitations imposed by their articulation with state politics. This adaptation is necessary to maintain relevance in a changing economic landscape, where capital accumulation is increasingly prioritised over labour rights. The shift towards social movement unionism reflects an adaptive strategy to counter state and capitalist repression. By forming broader alliances, labour movements aim to enhance their bargaining power and resist the curbing effects of neoliberal policies on class consciousness and labour mobilisation.

In the 1970s, India saw a rise in industrial conflict alongside economic stagnation. During this period, labour unions were fragmented, with various federations, known as Central Trade Union Organisations (CTUOs), aligned with different political parties. This fragmentation weakened the labour movement's ability to act effectively outside the influence of state and political forces. As India’s organised sector declined, employment shifted predominantly to smaller, unregulated firms. This shift reflects a broader capitalist strategy to lower labour costs and increase profit margins, resulting in the precarious conditions that characterise much of today’s informal sector.

Under the Modi administration, labour law reforms have become a central part of the economic agenda, particularly through the ‘Make in India’ initiative. This initiative aims to attract global manufacturing investments by simplifying regulations and providing subsidies to large corporations. The reforms are framed as necessary for boosting economic growth and competitiveness, but from a Marxian perspective, they represent a strategic effort to enhance capital accumulation while eroding workers' rights through surplus extraction and exploitation of labour.

The proposed changes, including easing restrictions on layoffs and consolidating existing labour laws into a new Labour Code, align with capitalist objectives to reduce labour costs and limit worker protections. For example, altering the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to make large-scale layoffs easier without state approval reflects a clear shift towards prioritising business interests over job security. Similarly, the proposed restrictions on strike actions and adjustments to minimum wage regulations further illustrate how state policies serve to undermine labour’s collective bargaining power in favour of capital interests.

Despite these challenges, labour unions, especially those associated with CTUOs, have organised significant resistance. The large-scale strikes, such as the 2016 Bharat Bandh, demonstrate the scale of labour unrest and the limitations of current labour laws in addressing workers’ demands. However, the impact of such protests has been constrained by the Modi government’s political manoeuvring and its appeal to various social and economic classes.

Moreover, important labour struggles often occur outside the framework of traditional union activities. For instance, grassroots movements in industries such as automotive, garment, and tea plantations show a more localised and direct form of resistance. These movements, sometimes characterised by wildcat strikes and involving informal sector workers, challenge the idea that labour struggles are solely mediated through formal unions. They highlight the inadequacy of existing labour laws in addressing the diverse and precarious nature of contemporary work conditions.

Conclusion

The curbing of labour movements in India, viewed through a Neo-Gramscian lens, highlights the state's pivotal role in protecting capitalist interests through repression and neoliberal policies. Despite the historical strength and adaptability of labour movements; state and capitalist actions have systematically undermined their ability to mobilise and resist effectively. This ongoing struggle underscores the need for a renewed focus on class consciousness and solidarity among workers to counter these oppressive forces and challenge the hegemony of capital accumulation. The fragmentation of labour unions, the focus on neoliberal reforms, and the suppression of labour resistance reflect a broader strategy to perpetuate capitalist hegemony. Despite notable mobilizations and grassroots activism, the trend towards increased exploitation and weakened labour protections persists. 

It is required to challenge the notion that the Indian labour movement is inherently weak and fragmented. Instead, labour movements have been more unified and contentious than commonly perceived. However, state and capitalist interests systematically portray them as divided to undermine their effectiveness. This portrayal serves to diminish class consciousness and facilitate the continued accumulation of capital by preventing workers from recognizing their collective power. Therefore, it is important to discuss the ‘moral economy of labour protests’. Workers' protests are often defensive reactions to violations of their perceived entitlements, and state repression serves to maintain the existing capitalist order. In India, similar dynamics play out as the state and its ideology, uses repressive tactics to curb labour movements, thereby protecting capital accumulation and suppressing the development of class consciousness.