OPINIONWhat Keralam must get right on labour codes?
For a cashew worker in Kollam, a handloom worker in Kannur or a young employee on a fixed-term contract in Thiruvananthapuram, the debate over India’s new Labour Codes has an immediate meaning. Will wages be paid on time? Will a familiar welfare benefit survive? What happens if employment ends suddenly? Keralam’s response to the Codes should begin with these questions, not with the drafting of another set of forms.
On 22 October, Chief Minister V D Satheesan met representatives of 22 trade unions in the presence of Labour Minister Bindu Krishna. The government announced a committee to recommend how the State should frame rules under the four Central Labour Codes. The Labour Department Secretary is to convene it, with the Additional Secretary of the Law Department, seven trade union representatives and Labour Department officials among its members. Its report is due within ten days of the committee's formation. That is a demanding timetable for decisions affecting very different kinds of employment.
The national position is already settled in one important respect. The four Codes, covering wages, industrial relations, social security and occupational safety, took effect on 21 November 2025. They consolidated 29 Central labour laws; the Central government subsequently notified rules in May 2026. Keralam's continuing consultations concern the State rules, safeguards and methods of enforcement. Describing the Codes as though their national commencement still awaits a State decision would mislead readers.
Where state powers begin and end?
Labour is a subject on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws. That does not give a State government unrestricted freedom to rewrite a Central statute through rules issued by a department. A rule can fill in matters entrusted to the State by the Code; it cannot lawfully cancel an obligation or alter a threshold fixed by Parliament merely because the State disagrees with it.
Consider the much-discussed threshold for prior government permission in certain cases of lay-off, retrenchment and closure. Section 77 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, applies the relevant chapter to specified industrial establishments with an average of at least 300 workers per working day over the preceding twelve months, subject to its statutory qualifications. The provision permits the appropriate government to notify a higher figure. It does not authorise a reduction below 300 by an ordinary State rule. Nor does falling below that figure remove every other protection a worker may have under the Code.
If Keralam wishes to offer additional legal safeguards, the proposed measure must be assessed on its own terms. Article 254 of the Constitution deals with conflicts between Parliamentary and State laws in Concurrent List matters. In an appropriate case, a State law that conflicts with a Central law may operate in that State after Presidential assent under Article 254(2), although Parliament retains the power to override it. That is a legislative route requiring careful scrutiny, not a shortcut available to rule-makers.
There is already material to examine. Draft State rules were published in 2021. A separate expert committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge, Justice V Gopala Gowda submitted a report in March 2026. Published accounts of its recommendations included proposals for separate State legislation concerning informal workers and security of employment.
The new committee should explain which of those proposals it considers legally workable, which require further action and why. One State and many working realities Keralam's established welfare arrangements make this exercise unusually important. The Labour Commissionerate lists separate welfare boards for, among others, cashew, handloom, beedi and cigar, construction, headload and small-plantation workers. A person who has contributed to a board over many years should not be left uncertain about a pending claim because the legal framework is changing.
The government needs to identify overlapping registrations, contributions, qualifying conditions and claims procedures before introducing new administrative requirements. In Kollam's cashew industry and Alappuzha's coir sector, the position of women and workers whose employment is irregular deserves close attention.
Kannur's handloom and beedi workers face different questions about piece-rate income and continuity of welfare cover. Plantation employees in Wayanad require practical arrangements for safety, housing-related obligations where applicable and accessible medical support. These are examples of where field consultations can expose difficulties that a legal drafting meeting in Thiruvananthapuram might miss.
The priorities of employers also vary. Small industrial and service establishments around Ernakulam and Thrissur need understandable registration procedures and predictable inspections. In Thiruvananthapuram's technology and service economy, the treatment of fixed-term contracts, working hours and grievance complaints calls for clarity. The State cannot write a different Central Code for each district. It can, however, ensure that the machinery used to administer the law reflects the work actually being done there.
Gig workers and workers from other states
An app-based food delivery rider in Kochi or a ride-hailing driver in Kozhikode may depend on changing incentives, commissions and working hours, without the predictable income associated with regular employment. The Code on Social Security, 2020 expressly recognises gig and platform workers and empowers the Central government to establish schemes dealing with matters such as accident insurance, health benefits and old-age protection.
Recognition in a statute does not mean that every rider already receives each benefit. Keralam should consult workers and platform operators, assist eligible workers with registration, and publish clear information on applicable schemes and complaint procedures. Accident protection deserves particular attention where the work itself requires long hours on the road.
Inter-State migrant workers need a separate response. Many people employed in Keralam's construction, hospitality and manufacturing sectors have come from other States, sometimes through contractors and sometimes on their own. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 contains specific provisions for eligible inter-State migrant workers, including matters of journey allowance and access to
the public distribution system, subject to the Code's conditions.
Keralam already operates the ATHIDHI system for registering migrant workers, employers and contractors. The immediate task is to explain who qualifies for which protection, how records are updated when jobs change, and where workers can complain about unpaid wages or unsafe conditions. Assistance in languages familiar to migrant workers, backed by district-level officers, is essential; registration alone is not a remedy.
The Code on Wages presents another practical test. Keralam has issued minimum-wage notifications across a range of employments. The department should check, sector by sector, how those notifications operate within the new statutory structure, and tell employers and workers which rate applies during the transition.
Uncertainty about the applicable wage harms compliant businesses as well as employees who must decide
whether they have been underpaid.
What the ten-day report should contain?
The committee would serve the State better with a short set of decisions that can be acted upon than with another broad statement of principle. For each disputed provision, it should identify the Central rule or section, the precise State action proposed, its legal basis and the office responsible. Recommendations requiring a State Bill, a request to the Union government or a change in departmental procedure should be shown separately.
A second task is to document what must remain uninterrupted: welfare-board benefits, outstanding claims, wage notifications and channels for complaints. District labour officers could be asked for a small number of recurring problems from their areas.
Representatives of women workers, small employers, migrant workers and existing boards should be able to submit examples, even if consultations must continue after the report is delivered. The government's promise to circulate recommendations to trade unions should be implemented in a way that allows meaningful responses.
Finally, the report needs an administrative timetable. Officials must know when revised forms and digital systems will be ready, who will train inspectors, and where a worker can seek help without having to interpret four lengthy statutes. The financial cost of adapting welfare and enforcement systems also deserves an honest estimate. A rule may be sound in law and still fail in practice if the people expected to use it are not prepared.
Keralam has a substantial history of sector-specific labour welfare. The present opportunity is to preserve what works, correct what has become cumbersome and make any new safeguards legally defensible. A ten-day committee cannot settle every disagreement over national labour policy. It can give the government a credible map of what it may change, what it must implement and where workers are most likely to be left behind.
The author is associate professor at CHRIST University, Delhi NCR. Views expressed are personal.