Context:

• India's four Labour Codes — enacted during 2019-20 — finally have their implementation rules notified in May 2026, completing the legislative framework after nearly six years.
• The four codes are:
  • The Code on Wages (2019),
  • The Industrial Relations Code (2020),
  • The Code on Social Security (2020), and
  • The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (2020).
• Trade unions and academics had hoped that the Rules — which lay down standard operating procedures for implementing a law — would moderate some of the more contentious provisions.
• This article highlights the completion of the implementation framework for India's four Labour Codes with the notification of Rules in May 2026.
• It examines whether the Rules address long-standing concerns regarding worker protection, job security, wages, social security, trade union rights, and workplace safety.
• The article argues that despite completing the legislative process, several critical gaps remain, leaving workers vulnerable and weakening labour protections.

What Are Rules and Why Do They Matter?

• Rules cannot contradict the parent legislation, but they become critical wherever a law is broad or open-ended.
• They fill gaps, define procedures, and protect against misuse.
• Given the sustained opposition to several provisions in the four codes, the Rules offered a meaningful opportunity to address workers' concerns — an opportunity the author believes has been squandered.

Critical Gaps in the Labour Codes

• Fixed-Term Employment: A Door Left Wide Open
  • The Industrial Relations Code formally introduced Fixed-Term Employment (FTE) into India's labour law framework.
  • However, the Code specifies neither a minimum tenure nor a cap on contract renewals. The Rules maintain the same silence.
  • A minimum tenure of one year could have protected workers from exploitatively short contracts.
  • Without any renewal limit, even permanent positions can potentially be converted into FTEs with unlimited renewals — a significant regression for job security.
• Minimum Wages: Vague and Biased
  • The Code on Wages Rules provide only a vague definition of "floor wage" without clearly distinguishing it from the minimum wage.
  • The Rules prescribe consultation with state governments but specify no framework for how such consultations should work — raising fears they will remain symbolic.
  • More troublingly, the Rules perpetuate a gender bias baked into the existing wage-fixing convention: a four-member family is treated as comprising three consumption units, where an adult female is assigned a weight of 0.8 against 1.0 for an adult male.
    • The Rules do nothing to correct this.
  • The Rules also define hourly wage as simply the daily wage divided by eight — a conceptually flawed approach.
  • Internationally, hourly minimum wages are fixed independently of daily wages, because part-time or hourly workers may not find work for the remaining hours of the day.
  • This matters greatly given India's large domestic worker population and the rising gig economy.

Gig Workers: Left in a Legal Grey Zone

• The Social Security Code Rules make no attempt to clarify the employment status of gig and platform workers.
• They continue to be treated as self-employed and remain part of the unorganised workforce — outside the protective ambit of formal labour law.
• The Rules are also silent on mandatory gratuity insurance — a safeguard envisaged under the Code to protect workers from employers who fail to pay gratuity.
• By not specifying how this insurance would work, an important worker protection remains undefined on paper.

Trade Union Recognition: A Higher Bar, Less Protection

• The Industrial Relations Code Rules require that a sole registered trade union must have at least 30% membership to be recognised.
• Crucially, this 30% threshold does not even appear in the Code itself — it has been introduced through the Rules.
• In large establishments, smaller or newly formed unions may struggle to meet this bar, further eroding workers' collective bargaining power at a time when union membership has already been declining for decades.

Missing Safeguards: Safety, Contract Labour, and Plantations

• The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code Rules omit certain occupation-specific welfare measures — notably housing and medical facilities for plantation workers.
• The Rules also do not specify which activities can be performed by contract labour, nor do they distinguish between core and non-core activities.
• This ambiguity facilitates growing informalisation, as employers can engage contract labour even in core operations without legal clarity constraining them.

Conclusion

• Labour reform must balance ease of doing business with dignity of work.
• When rules that could have protected millions are left deliberately vague, it is not a legislative oversight — it is a policy choice that the working class will live with for years.