The Evolution and Impact of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947: Analysing its Role in Modern Labour Relations

Submitted by:
Ariba Qureshi, A-52

New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be

University, Pune

CLASS: B.A. L.L.B

YEAR: 4TH Year
DIVISION: A

SUBJECT NAME: Labour Law

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Aim & Objectives
4. Chapters:
Chapter1: Historical Context and Legislative Evolution
Chapter 2: Key Provisions and Their Implementation
Chapter 3: Judicial Interpretation and Case Law Development
Chapter 4: Contemporary Relevance and Challenges
5. Conclusion
6. Recommendation
7. References
ABSTRACT

This paper examines the evolutionary trajectory and contemporary significance of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) in India's labour relations framework. Enacted shortly
after independence, this landmark legislation has shaped the contours of industrial relations in
India for over seven decades. Through critical analysis of its provisions, amendments,
judicial interpretations, and practical applications, this research evaluates the Act's continued
relevance in addressing the changing dynamics of employer-employee relationships in an
increasingly globalized economic environment. The study highlights the tensions between
labour protection and economic liberalization, assessing how the IDA has adapted to balance
worker welfare with industrial productivity and economic growth. This research contributes
to ongoing discussions about labour law reforms in India by providing insights into the
strengths and limitations of the IDA in addressing contemporary labour challenges.
INTRODUCTION

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 represents one of the foundational pillars of Indian labour
legislation, enacted during a crucial period of national transition. As India emerged from
colonial rule, the newly independent nation faced the challenging task of establishing a
comprehensive legal framework to govern industrial relations. The IDA was conceived
against the backdrop of increasing labour activism and the need to create formal mechanisms
for resolving disputes between employers and workers.

The Act came into force on April 1, 1947, just months before India's independence, signifying
the importance placed on labour relations by the emerging nation-state. Its primary objective
was to provide a structured mechanism for the investigation and settlement of industrial
disputes, while simultaneously ensuring a reasonable level of protection for workers against
arbitrary termination and unfair labour practices. Additionally, the legislation aimed to
promote industrial peace and harmony by encouraging dialogue and negotiation between
management and labour.1

Over the decades, the IDA has evolved through numerous amendments, judicial
interpretations, and administrative implementations, adapting to changing economic
conditions and industrial relations paradigms. This paper examines this evolution, focusing
particularly on how the Act has responded to India's shift from a command economy to a
more liberalized, globally integrated economic model. Through this analysis, the research
seeks to evaluate the contemporary relevance and effectiveness of the IDA in addressing the
complex challenges of modern labour relations in India.

1
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1947 (India).
https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/THE-INDUSTRIAL-DISPUTES-ACT-1947.pdf
LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on the historical evolution of the Industrial Disputes Act reveals a complex
interplay between colonial legacies and post-independence aspirations. Babu (2012) provides
a detailed chronological examination of pre-independence labour legislation, highlighting
how the Trade Disputes Act of 1929 and Défense of India Rules (particularly Rule 81A)
established precedents for state intervention in industrial relations. Cox (2018) demonstrates
how these colonial regulations primarily aimed to maintain industrial peace for imperial
economic interests rather than protecting worker welfare, contrasting with the post-
independence reorientation documented by Shyam Sundar (2018).

The immediate post-independence period has been extensively analysed by Ramaswamy

(2000), who characterizes the IDA as embodying a "controlled capitalism" approach that
accepted private enterprise while imposing significant social obligations. This perspective is
complemented by Bhattacharjee’s (2001) argument that the Act represented a compromise
between competing visions of industrial development, balancing worker protections with
economic growth imperatives. Kennedy's (2013) comparative analysis situates India's
approach within broader post-colonial labour regulation patterns, noting distinctive features
like the extensive role assigned to state intervention in dispute resolution. 2

The literature on the historical evolution of the Industrial Disputes Act reveals a complex
interplay between colonial legacies and post-independence aspirations. Babu (2012) provides
a detailed chronological examination of pre-independence labour legislation, highlighting
how the Trade Disputes Act of 1929 and Defense of India Rules (particularly Rule 81A)
established precedents for state intervention in industrial relations

The immediate post-independence period has been extensively analysed by Ramaswamy

(2000), who characterizes the IDA as embodying a "controlled capitalism" approach that
accepted private enterprise while imposing significant social obligations. This perspective is
complemented by Bhattacharjee’s (2001) argument that the Act represented a compromise
between competing visions of industrial development, balancing worker protections with
economic growth imperatives. Kennedy's (2013) comparative analysis situates India's
approach within broader post-colonial labour regulation patterns, noting distinctive features
like the extensive role assigned to state intervention in dispute resolution.3

RESEARCH AIM & OBJECTIVES

2
Anonymous Student, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – History, Object, Definitions, Dispute Resolution
Machineries, Voluntary Arbitration, Appropriate Government, M.S. Ramaiah College of Law
(2020/2021), available at https://www.studocu.com/in/document/m-s-ramaiah-college-of-law/labour-
law-1/industrial-disputes-act-1947-history-object-definitions-dispute-resolution-machineries-voluntary-
arbitration-appropriate-government/16730939.
3
admin, Understanding the Industrial Disputes Act 1947: Explained in Detail, Corrida Legal (July 17,
2024), https://corridalegal.com/understanding-the-industrial-disputes-act-1947-explained/.
RESEARCH AIM
This research aims to critically analyse the evolutionary trajectory and contemporary
relevance of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, evaluating its effectiveness in addressing
modern labour relations challenges within India's changing economic landscape.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of this research are:

1. To trace the historical evolution of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, examining
its colonial antecedents, original provisions, and significant amendments in relation to
changing socio-economic and political contexts.

2. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Act's dispute resolution machinery in

preventing and resolving industrial conflicts, analysing outcomes, procedural
efficiency, and accessibility across different sectors and regions.

3. To assess the impact of the Act's employment protection provisions on labour

market dynamics, examining their influence on formal employment growth, labour
productivity, and enterprise flexibility.

4. To analyse judicial interpretations that have shaped the Act's implementation,

particularly focusing on evolving definitions of "industry," "workman," and the
balance between managerial rights and worker protections.
5. To identify challenges to the Act's effectiveness in contemporary contexts,
particularly regarding economic liberalization, the growth of non-standard
employment arrangements, and digitalization of work.

6. To examine proposed reforms to the Act, evaluating their potential to address

identified limitations while maintaining appropriate worker protections in the context
of evolving labour markets.

7. To develop a framework for evaluating labour legislation effectiveness that

integrates legal, economic, and social dimensions, contributing to broader theoretical
understanding of regulatory approaches to industrial relations.

Chapter 1: Historical Context and Legislative Evolution

1.1 Pre-Independence Labor Legislation
The roots of the Industrial Disputes Act can be traced to earlier colonial labour legislation,
particularly the Trade Disputes Act of 1929. The colonial administration enacted limited
labour regulations primarily to maintain industrial peace rather than to protect workers' rights.
Labor unrest during the 1920s and 1930s, coinciding with the independence movement,
highlighted the need for more comprehensive dispute resolution mechanisms.

During World War II, the Defense of India Rules introduced emergency provisions for
preventing and settling industrial disputes to ensure uninterrupted war production. Rule 81A
of these regulations served as a direct precursor to the Industrial Disputes Act, providing the
colonial government with extraordinary powers to intervene in labour disputes. This wartime
experience demonstrated both the necessity and feasibility of state intervention in industrial
relations, establishing an important precedent for post-war labour legislation.

The immediate post-war period witnessed heightened labour activism across India, with
workers demanding better wages and working conditions in the context of wartime inflation
and economic uncertainty. This surge in industrial unrest created an urgent need for a
permanent statutory framework to replace the temporary wartime regulations. The Industrial
Disputes Bill was introduced in this context, reflecting both continuities with colonial
approaches and new aspirations for independent India's industrial relations. 4

1.2 Enactment and Original Provisions

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 emerged as a comprehensive legislation designed to
establish machinery for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. Its original
provisions reflected a careful balance between worker protection and industrial development
priorities. The Act established a three-tier dispute resolution system comprising works
committees at the enterprise level, conciliation officers at the intermediate level, and labor
courts and industrial tribunals for formal adjudication.

The Act defined "industry" broadly to encompass most organized economic activities, though
subsequent judicial interpretations would significantly impact this scope. It established
specific procedures for layoffs, retrenchment, and closure, requiring employers to provide
notice periods, compensation, and justifications for such actions. The legislation also
recognized strikes and lockouts as legitimate industrial actions while simultaneously
imposing restrictions on their timing and circumstances to encourage peaceful resolution. 5

One of the most significant original provisions was Section 33, which restricted employers
from altering service conditions or dismissing protected workmen during the pendency of

4
Shubham Sharma, Labour Law: Overview of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, 6 Asia Pac. L. & Pol’y
Rev. 71 (2020), available at https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Shubham-
APLPR.pdf.
5
**Palak Verma & Aditya Tomar, Industry Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 4 Academike 8 (2015),
available at https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/industry-under-industrial-disputes-act-
1947/.**​:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
proceedings. Similarly, Section 9A required employers to provide notice before changing
working conditions. These provisions aimed to create stability during dispute resolution
processes and protect workers from victimization for asserting their rights through formal
channels.

1.3 Major Amendments and Their Implications

Over its seven-decade history, the Industrial Disputes Act has undergone several significant
amendments reflecting changing political, economic, and social contexts. The 1956
amendments expanded the definition of "appropriate government" and clarified jurisdictional
aspects. More substantially, the 1976 amendments, enacted during the Emergency period,
introduced Chapter V-B, requiring prior governmental permission for layoffs, retrenchment,
and closures in industrial establishments employing 300 or more workers (later reduced to
100 workers in 1984).

The 1982 amendments strengthened protections against unfair labour practices by adding a
specific schedule defining such practices and establishing penalties. The inclusion of Section
2A in 1965 represented another important development, classifying individual termination
disputes as industrial disputes even without union endorsement, thereby significantly
expanding access to the dispute resolution machinery.
More recent amendment attempts, including the proposed Labour Code on Industrial
Relations, reflect the tension between protecting worker rights and creating a more flexible
labour market. These proposals have generally aimed to simplify compliance requirements,
increase thresholds for applicability of restrictive provisions, and streamline the dispute
resolution process. However, consistent political opposition has limited substantial overhauls
of the Act's core protective framework.

Each amendment cycle has reflected the prevailing political economy and power relations
between labour, capital, and the state. The gradual expansion of protective provisions through
the 1970s and 1980s coincided with strengthened labour movements and socialist political
orientations, while reform attempts since the 1990s have aligned with liberalization policies
and employer demands for greater flexibility.

Chapter 2: Key Provisions and Their Implementation

2.1 Dispute Resolution Machinery

The Industrial Disputes Act establishes a multi-tiered dispute resolution framework designed
to address conflicts at different levels of complexity and scale. At the establishment level,
Works Committees comprising employer and employee representatives serve as the first
forum for addressing workplace grievances. These committees exemplify the Act's emphasis
on bipartite dialogue as the preferred method for resolving disputes, though their
effectiveness has varied significantly across industries and regions.

When bipartite negotiations fail, the Act provides for conciliation by government-appointed
conciliation officers. This stage represents a facilitated negotiation process where a neutral
third party assists the disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable solution. The
conciliation process maintains the voluntary nature of dispute resolution while introducing
state involvement to encourage compromise. Statistical evidence suggests that conciliation
has been moderately successful in resolving disputes, particularly those concerning wages
and allowances.

If conciliation fails, disputes may be referred to adjudication through labour courts, industrial
tribunals, or national tribunals depending on the nature and scope of the dispute. These quasi-
judicial bodies have the authority to issue binding awards after hearing evidence and
arguments from both sides. The adjudication process transforms industrial disputes from
purely economic conflicts into justiciable issues involving legal rights and obligations. While
providing definitive resolutions, the adversarial nature of adjudication often strains industrial
relations and delays can undermine its effectiveness. 6

Implementation challenges in the dispute resolution machinery include insufficient staffing of

conciliation departments, backlogs in labour courts, inconsistent approaches across states,
and enforcement difficulties. The time required for dispute resolution frequently extends
beyond statutory timelines, undermining the Act's goal of prompt conflict resolution. Despite
these limitations, the multi-tiered system continues to manage thousands of disputes annually,
providing structured channels for addressing industrial conflicts.

2.2 Regulation of Strikes and Lockouts

The Industrial Disputes Act recognizes strikes and lockouts as legitimate industrial actions
while simultaneously regulating their exercise to minimize economic disruption. Sections 22
and 23 establish procedural requirements for legal strikes, including notice periods,
prohibition during pending proceedings, and restrictions in public utility services. Similarly,
Section 24 outlines conditions for lawful lockouts. These provisions aim to transform
industrial action from spontaneous disruptions into regulated pressure tactics within the
dispute resolution process.
The Act distinguishes between legal and illegal strikes rather than completely prohibiting
work stoppages. This approach acknowledges the fundamental right of workers to withdraw
labour while channelling such actions into predictable patterns that encourage negotiation
The practical effect has been to significantly reduce wildcat strikes and create incentives for
unions to work within the established legal framework.

6
rajvuniversity, The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Vrindawan University (Dec. 26, 2024),
https://vuniversity.in/the-industrial-dispute-act-1947/.
Implementation of these provisions has raised several challenges, including definitional
disputes over what constitutes a strike (particularly regarding go-slow tactics and mass casual
leave), jurisdictional questions between state and central governments, and enforcement
inconsistencies. Court interpretations have generally construed strike regulations strictly,
placing significant procedural burdens on workers to maintain legal protection during
industrial action.

While strike rates in formal sectors have declined since the economic liberalization of the
1990s, this reflects changing economic conditions and power dynamics rather than solely the
Act's efficacy. State-specific differences in implementation and enforcement have created an
uneven regulatory landscape, with some states enforcing strike provisions more rigorously
than others. This variation has contributed to regional differences in industrial relations
climates across India. 7

Chapter 3: Judicial Interpretation and Case Law Development

3.1 Expanding and Contracting the Definition of "Industry"

The definition of "industry" in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been subject to
extensive judicial interpretation, significantly influencing the Act's scope and application. The
landmark case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
represented the high-water mark of an expansive interpretation, with Justice Krishna Iyer

7
Mahima, Industrial Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in India: A Critical Analysis of New Labour
Reforms and Its Impact on Industrial Harmony, 10 Int’l J. L. 252 (2024), available at
https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2024/vol10issue1/10178.pdf.
articulating the "dominant nature" test that brought nearly all organized activities, including
hospitals, educational institutions, and professional services, within the Act's ambit.

This broad interpretation aimed to extend protective labour provisions to workers across
diverse sectors, reflecting a judicial philosophy that prioritized worker welfare. However, it
created practical challenges for non-profit organizations, professional practices, and
governmental functions not originally contemplated by the legislation. Subsequent judicial
decisions, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh (2005), have gradually narrowed
this interpretation, exempting sovereign functions and certain charitable activities from the
definition. 8

3.2 Individual Disputes and the Concept of "Workman"

The integration of individual employment disputes into the collective dispute resolution
framework represents another significant area of judicial development. While the Act
originally focused on collective industrial conflicts, the addition of Section 2A explicitly
brought individual termination disputes within its scope. This expansion reflected recognition
that individual employment security forms an essential component of harmonious industrial
relations.

Judicial interpretation has further developed the concept of who qualifies as a "workman"
entitled to the Act's protections. The statutory definition excludes mainly managerial and
administrative personnel, but courts have developed functional tests examining the actual
nature of duties rather than job titles or compensation levels. Cases like Dharan Adhara
Chemical Works v. State of Gujarat (1973) established that skilled professionals may qualify
as workmen if they do not perform primarily managerial functions.

3.3 Balancing Managerial Rights and Worker Protections

The judicial interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act reveals an ongoing effort to balance
managerial prerogatives with worker protections. Courts have recognized what they term
"managerial rights" in areas such as work organization, technological changes, and business
strategy, while simultaneously enforcing procedural safeguards that constrain how these
rights are exercised. This balanced approach attempts to preserve industrial efficiency while
preventing arbitrary exercises of employer power.

In cases concerning retrenchment and closure, courts have developed the doctrine of "no
work no pay" alongside protection against arbitrary dismissal. Similarly, in disputes about
workplace changes, judicial decisions have generally upheld management's authority to
introduce technological improvements and reorganize production while requiring
consultation, notice, and sometimes compensation for affected workers. This approach

8
Ram Milan, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Univ. of Lucknow, Faculty of Commerce,
https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004132159500424ram_milan_Industrial_
Disputes_Act_1947.pdf.
acknowledges legitimate business needs while creating institutional protections for
vulnerable employees. 9

Chapter 4: Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

4.1 Economic Liberalization and Labor Market Flexibility

The economic liberalization initiatives launched in 1991 fundamentally altered the context in
which the Industrial Disputes Act operates. The shift from a protected, inward-looking
economy to a more globally integrated market economy has created persistent tension
between the Act's employment security provisions and demands for greater labour market

9
Aarushi Mittal, Closure in Labour Law, iPleaders Blog (Dec. 19, 2023),
https://blog.ipleaders.in/closure-in-labour-law/.
flexibility. This tension reflects broader debates about the appropriate balance between
worker protection and economic efficiency in a competitive global environment.

Foreign investors and domestic industry groups have consistently identified Chapter V-B
restrictions on retrenchment and closure as impediments to investment and formal sector job
creation. Their critique suggests that excessive employment rigidity discourages formal
hiring, contributes to capital-intensive production strategies, and incentivizes contract labour
arrangements that circumvent permanent employment protections. These concerns have
gained traction in policy circles as India seeks to expand manufacturing employment and
attract global production facilities. 10

4.2 Growth of Contract Labor and Informal Employment

One of the most significant challenges to the Industrial Disputes Act's effectiveness has been
the dramatic expansion of contract labour and informal employment arrangements. As
enterprises seek to avoid the rigidities and compliance requirements associated with
permanent employment, they have increasingly relied on staffing agencies, fixed-term
contracts, and informal work arrangements that fall outside the Act's protective framework or
receive substantially reduced protections.

This trend has created a deeply segmented labour market where a diminishing core of
protected formal workers coexists with a growing periphery of precarious workers
performing similar functions with fewer rights and benefits. Statistical evidence indicates that
contract workers now constitute over 35% of the workforce in organized manufacturing, with
even higher percentages in certain sectors. These workers typically receive lower wages,
minimal benefits, limited job security, and restricted access to collective representation
despite performing essential productive functions.

4.3 Digital Platform Economy and Changing Employment Paradigms

The emergence of digital platforms facilitating gig work, freelancing, and algorithmic
management presents novel challenges to the regulatory framework established by the
Industrial Disputes Act. These new forms of work organization often deliberately position
themselves outside traditional employment relationships, classifying workers as independent
contractors or partners rather than employees. This classification places them beyond the
reach of labour legislation designed for conventional industrial employment.

10
Amit Kumar Dutta, India’s Economic Reforms and Its Impact on Labour, IILS Blog (Oct. 2, 2014),
https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/indias-economic-reforms-and-its-impact-on-labour/.
Platform-based work arrangements frequently lack many characteristics presumed by the
Industrial Disputes Act, including stable workplaces, fixed working hours, direct supervision,
and clear organizational hierarchies. Instead, they feature algorithmic work allocation,
performance management through rating systems, flexible scheduling, and decentralized
work locations. These structural differences complicate the application of concepts like
"industry," "establishment," and "workman" that form the foundation of the Act's regulatory
approach.

The growth of remote work accelerated by technological developments and the COVID-19
pandemic has further challenged territorial and jurisdictional assumptions underlying the Act.
When work can be performed from anywhere and employment relationships span multiple
locations, questions arise regarding which government holds appropriate jurisdiction and how
collective dispute resolution mechanisms designed for physical workplaces can function
effectively. 11

Conclusion

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has demonstrated remarkable longevity and adaptability,
surviving multiple economic paradigms shifts while continuing to provide the basic
framework for Indian industrial relations. Its endurance reflects both the fundamental
importance of the issues it addresses and its capacity for evolutionary adaptation through
amendments, judicial interpretation, and administrative implementation. Despite persistent

11
Alok Prasanna Kumar, Deepa Padmar, Varini G & Raghunandan Sriram, A Model Law for
Platform Based Gig Workers, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (Apr. 2024),
https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/a-model-law-for-platform-based-gig-workers/.
critiques and reform proposals, the Act's core mechanisms for dispute prevention and
resolution remain largely intact after seven decades.

Contemporary challenges to the Act's effectiveness stem primarily from structural economic
changes rather than inherent design flaws. The growth of global production networks, non-
standard employment arrangements, and digital platform work has created employment
patterns that differ significantly from the industrial paradigm presumed by the legislation.
These developments have not rendered the Act irrelevant but have highlighted the need for
thoughtful adaptation to changing workplace realities.
Future reforms will need to balance multiple objectives: maintaining essential protections
against arbitrary treatment, creating sufficient flexibility for economic dynamism, extending
basic rights to currently excluded workers, and developing efficient resolution mechanisms
for contemporary workplace conflicts. This balancing act requires moving beyond ideological
positions toward evidence-based approaches that recognize the legitimate interests of various
stakeholders while prioritizing sustainable and inclusive economic development. 12

The evolution of the Industrial Disputes Act reflects India's broader journey from a newly
independent nation establishing basic labour protections to an emerging economic power
navigating complex global integration. Throughout this journey, the Act has embodied the
fundamental principle that industrial relations are not merely private economic transactions
but matters of public interest requiring appropriate regulatory frameworks. While
implementation modalities may continue to evolve, this core insight remains relevant to
addressing contemporary labour challenges.

Recommendations

Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Recognizing the limitations of the Industrial Disputes Act's formal adjudication system,
recent reform initiatives have emphasized strengthening alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mechanisms. These approaches seek to address the backlog of pending cases, reduce
resolution timelines, decrease adversarial tensions, and produce more sustainable outcomes.
Proposed and implemented ADR enhancements include specialized conciliation officers with

12
M.V. Arulmozhi, Industry Under Industrial Disputes Act: Issues and Challenges, 5 Indian J. L. &
Hum. Behav. 115 (2019), available at https://rfppl.co.in/subscription/upload_pdf/115%E2%80%93117-
1727945691.pdf.
industry-specific expertise, time-bound conciliation processes, and greater emphasis on
voluntary arbitration.

Bridging Formal-Informal Divides

A critical challenge for modernizing the Industrial Disputes Act is addressing the growing
divergence between the formal sector workers it principally protects and the vast informal
workforce that constitutes over 90% of India's labour force. This divide undermines both
social equity and economic efficiency, creating regulatory arbitrage opportunities that distort
labour market functioning. Reform proposals increasingly recognize the need for graduated
regulatory frameworks that extend basic protections to all workers while adjusting specific
requirements based on enterprise size and capacity.

One approach involves creating a universal floor of core labour protections applicable
regardless of employment status or enterprise characteristics, combined with additional layers
of regulation for larger entities and higher-risk activities. Proposals include simplified dispute
resolution procedures for small establishments, third-party conciliation services for informal
workers, and expanded definition of "employer" to capture disguised employment
relationships. The labour codes partially adopt this approach by establishing certain universal
entitlements while maintaining differential treatment based on establishment size.

References

Ahsan, A., & Pagés, C. (2009). Are all labor regulations equal? Evidence from Indian
manufacturing. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 62-75.

Bhattacharjee, D. (2017). Globalization, industrial relations systems and employment

relations in India. Employment Relations Record, 17(1), 2-23.
D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2016). Positives outweighing negatives: The experiences of
Indian crowdsourced workers. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 10(1), 44-63.

Gopalakrishnan, R. (2010). Enforcing labour rights through human rights norms: The
approach of the Supreme Court of India. In C. Fenwick & T. Novitz (Eds.), Human Rights at
Work: Perspectives on Law and Regulation (pp. 195-228). Hart Publishing.

International Labour Organization. (2018). India Wage Report: Wage policies for decent work
and inclusive growth. ILO DWT for South Asia and Country Office for India.

Jha, P., & Golder, S. (2014). Labour market regulation and economic performance: A critical
review of arguments and some plausible lessons for India. Economic and Labour Market
Papers, ILO.

Mathur, A. (2018). India's labour law reforms: Context, regional comparison and
considerations. Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(1), 3-17.

Mitchell, R., Mahy, P., & Gahan, P. (2014). The evolution of labour law in India: An
overview and commentary on regulatory objectives and development. Asian Journal of Law
and Society, 1(2), 413-453.

Nagaraj, R. (2020). Labour market flexibility and manufacturing growth in India. The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics, 63(1), 99-117.

Papola, T. S., & Pais, J. (2007). Debate on labour market reforms in India: A case of
misplaced focus. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 50(2), 183-200.

Roychowdhury, A. (2019). Labour law reforms in India: All in the name of jobs. Routledge.