Labour Codes: A Strike on Collectivism Johnson Abhishek Minz

Dr. Johnson Abhishek Minz is an Assistant Professor of HRM at XLRI, Jamshedpur.The labour codes came into force in November 2025, with the Rules issued in May 2026.

The first discussions on such an overhaul of the labour laws were recommended by the Second National Commission on Labour in 2002. The decisive political mandate achieved by the Modi Government in successive years since 2014 paved the way for the passage of four labour codes, despite persistent opposition from trade unions. Importantly, whereas the earlier labour laws largely treated workers and trade unions as integral components of a common framework of labour protection, the new labour codes have introduced a discernible separation between the interests and legal positioning of the two.

Paving the way for the IndividualSeveral commentators and observers have welcomed the labour codes for resolving the long-pending demands from labour. Provisions related to the abolition of scheduled employment and universal minimum wage coverage for all along with national floor wage, mechanism for recognition of trade unions, widening of social security cover for those in fixed term employment, allocations for the worker re-skilling fund, statutory liability of principal employer for contract labour and the elaborative definition of gender to include transgender people all highlight the constructive step that the labour codes have attempted to address. Several other demands, including the inclusion of gig workers and platform workers in social security schemes, have also been contemporary.

These demands had been repeatedly voiced in various forums by the Joint Platform of Central Trade Unions and Federations. While the labour codes have, on paper, balanced many of these demands, with enforceability concerns remaining, they have done so at the expense of weakening the platform through which these voices have been raised. The labour codes seek to view the worker not as one who belongs to a trade union but as an individual in itself.

Culling out the collectiveFrom a collective point of view, perhaps the most definitive demand that had been made was the provision for the recognition of unions for collective bargaining purposes. The IR Code mandates this recognition for the negotiating union or a negotiating council, granting them an exclusive statutory right to bargain with the employer. However, a closer look at the details reveals that collectivism fails on several counts.

Under the Trade Unions Act 1926, union registration was largely an entry requirement, while under the IR Code, it is a recurring, eternal obligation. The 10% all-time threshold for registration and the 30% threshold for recognition for sole unions would be a high ask for the unions. If a union commands exactly 10% or 51% support, the selective termination of a few key members removes them from the muster roll, potentially dropping the union below the legal floor required to exist or to act as the Sole Negotiating Union.

Further, while the definition of ‘worker’ under the IR Code includes dismissed or retrenched workers for the purposes of legal proceedings (such as a dispute over their firing), they are not counted for union thresholds. In such an environment, the sustenance of, especially, the newer unions under these new rules becomes difficult.In another instance, the increased liability of the principal employer towards contract labour arises without clearly defining the core and non-core activities for contract labour use.

As there are certain exemptions granted for core activities that is ordinarily done through a contractor, the rules had to further specify the meaning and duration of this ‘ordinarily done’ work. Without appropriate safeguards against these, it would blur the lines between permanent and contract labour in any establishment. Combining the registration and recognition aspects of trade unions with the lack of clarity around contract labour makes unionising efforts for permanent workers all the more difficult.

While ‘legal’ strikes have been rare, the Code has significantly raised the bar for conducting them. A 14-day notice now extends to all industrial establishments. Additionally, ‘concerted casual leave’ by 50%or more workers is now legally defined as a strike, closing off spontaneous protest avenues.

When combined with massive increases in penalties, fines for illegal strikes have jumped to ₹10,000 for workers and ₹50,000 for instigators; the procedural hurdles act as a powerful deterrent against collective action.The lone worker in the new eraWhile trade unions have historically resisted the excesses of managerial autonomy in organisations, a long-term, continuous decline in unions has left a void through which workers can raise their voices. In the face of contrasting provisions between workers and trade unions, leaving critical aspects undefined in the Rules gives management the leeway to make decisions on its own.

In the earlier regime, while workers may have benefited