Demands for extended work hours beyond the set limits, without addressing the implications on an employee and the beneficial aspect of the legislation fundamentally contradict the foundational principles of the Indian Labour legislation and undermine employee welfare

In recent months, the Indian Labour landscape has been stirred by provocative statements from prominent figures within the Corporate Sector with regard to work hours where they have fostered and advocated the necessity of extended work hours. It has been expressed by the highest in the echelons of Corporate Sector that a 70-hour work week should be a commitment from the Indian workforce, which is essential for India’s economic advancement or that a work week up to 90-hours should be a norm. There has been a pushback by other corporate giants where they have highlighted the anomalies of such a work culture.

No doubt the issue is complex, it’s present manifestations, it’s future expectations are all arising from a debate, a dichotomy between economic growth and the social implications of extended work hours. This contest or contradiction may continue, however, the resolution shall lie only within the boundaries of the Indian Legislative Framework.

At present, the framework of the Indian Labour Laws as structured, definitely prioritizes employee welfare and seeks to mitigate exploitative practices. For this very reason, considering human capacity & health (physical & mental) Corporate Sector, varied labour legislations in India have prescribed working hours. The Factories Act, 1948 under Section 51 (pertaining to Weekly hours) stipulates that No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than forty-eight hours in any week. In tandem with this, Section 54 of the same Act mentions that no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than 9 hours in any day. Backing these provisions, Section 56 of the same Act specifies that the period of work including the intervals, shall not spread over more than ten and a half hours on any day. Parallel provisions can also be found in various state-specific Shops & Establishment Acts. For instance, Section 8 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, mirror these limitations, asserting that ‘No adult shall be employed or allowed to work about the business of an establishment for more than nine hours on any day or 48 hours in any week and the occupier shall fix the daily periods of work accordingly’.

Building on the legislative safeguards for workers’ rights, these protections are further delineated in the following provisions; Section 59 of the Factories Act prescribes that, when a worker works more than 9 hours in a day or 48 hours in any week, the rate of wages for this overtime work would be twice of what is his ordinary rate of wages. This principle is further reinforced by the Minimum Wages Act, of 1948, which recognizes the concept of an ‘overtime rate’ for work exceeding prescribed hours. Section 14 of the Act mandates that the employer shall pay the employee for every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess of the working hours at the overtime rate fixed. Moreover, Section 13 provides that work done on a day of rest shall be paid at a rate not less than the overtime rate. Any failure to ensure such due compensation exposes the employer to claims from workers under Section 20, seeking redress for unpaid overtime. These statutory provisions collectively ensure a fundamental tenet that ‘normal working hours’ constitute an absolute limit, and any hours spent working beyond this threshold is not a matter of discretion but matter of entitlement demanding appropriate remuneration. In this context, the Shops and Establishments Act, which may differ from state to state and is applicable to the establishment therefore, is applicable to both managerial and non-managerial positions, also maintains that any person employed on overtime shall be entitled to remuneration for such overtime work at twice the rate of the normal remuneration calculated by the hour. This intent is further emphasized in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which requires contractors to maintain a register of overtime work, properly documenting hours and wages paid. These provisions have time and again reinforced that excess labour falls outside the standard expectation and must be befittingly recognized and compensated.

Taking the physical and mental well-being of employees into account, the laws at present are meticulously drafted to ensure that work hours do not detrimentally affect these aspects. The 48-hour work week aligns with the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards which has benchmarked this for sustainable employment. It is a well-considered threshold based on factors such as worker productivity, occupational health, and fair compensation which reflects a considered balance between productivity and worker well-being. Extended and prolonged daily working hours, such as 11 to 15 hours can have detrimental effects on employees’ physical and mental well-being. The ILO actively encourages governments to take progressive steps reducing the normal working hours to 40 hours per week. India however should not lose sight of the fact that ILO continuously encourages multinational entities to constantly assess economic and social factors like economic development, competitive position in international trade, inflationary factors, modern technology, automation, management techniques, preferences of employers and workers organisations etc and progressively aim to reduce the normal work week from 48 to 40 and extend with overtime work to 48 hours.

The detrimental effects of excessive working hours are well-identified by ILO, highlighting their co-relation with sleep disturbance, fatigue, cardio-vascular, gastro-intestinal and mental health disorders. Prolonged work hours without adequate rest contributes to increased accidents, injuries, diminished productivity and poorer work quality. Recognizing these, both the Factories Act and the Shops and Establishments Act provided for mandatory rest intervals. The Factories Act expresses that no worker shall work for more than 5 hours before she has had an interval for the rest of at least half an hour, provided that the state government may set this for 6 hours of work without intervals at max. Correspondingly, Section 10 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act reinforces this principle by ensuring that any employee shall be allowed to take intervals of at least half an hour for rest and meal after 5 hours of continuous work. In addition to these rest provisions, the said Acts provide for weekly days off, further emphasizing the legal recognition that sustained productivity must be balanced with adequate breaks.

In order to streamline the management bandwidth and certify compliance with the set standards, the 4 new Labour Codes, consolidating 29 central labour laws, represent a step in the right direction. The Code on Wages, 2019 encapsulates the above discussed key provisions involved in this issue of extended work hours in a more structured and consolidated manner. However, these provisions represent only a portion of the Code’s broader framework, which recognizes the needs of an employee in a holistic manner.

The Economic Survey 2024-25 of India, published by the Ministry of Finance has also identified contradictions within existing labour laws. For instance, in analysing the Factories Act, the Survey highlights a structural inconsistency and notes that ‘Section 56 of the Factories Act limits a worker to a maximum of 10.5 hrs at a factory daily, equating to approximately 63 hours in a six-day week. Of these, only 48 hours are considered regular (Section 51), 3 hours are considered rest intervals, and the remaining 12 hours count as overtime. Over a 13-week quarter, this would allow for 156 overtime hours; yet another provision (Section 65) caps overtime at only 75 hours per quarter. This discrepancy, as noted in the Survey, not only restricts workers’ earning potential but also has broader implications for financial well-being and industrial productivity. The Labour Code aim to address such structural issues, introducing a more structured and flexible framework that aligns both employer and employee interests, ensuring a progressive, equitable, and sustainable work environment.

Given these legal protections, it is imperative that corporations, establishments and factories, ensure that their Human Resource policies are structured in such a manner, which takes note of the existing labour laws and statutory mandates. Any modification to working hours, particularly an increase beyond prescribed limits, must be duly transparently communicated to employees. Such changes must also adhere to statutory provisions concerning overtime compensation, rest intervals, and employee welfare. In this background, as and when the Labour Codes come into force, the corporate establishments also have to revisit their organizational practices and policies in a such a manner which brings stability and compliance, ensuring growth in a holistic manner.

Demands for extended work hours beyond the set limits, without addressing the implications on an employee and the beneficial aspect of the legislation fundamentally contradict the foundational principles of the Indian Labour legislation and undermine employee welfare. However, such assertions have reignited the necessity for legal practitioners, judicial bodies, organizations, and industry leaders to critically reassess existing mandates and their alignment with contemporary workforce dynamics.

This article authored by our Partner, Varsha Kripalani, Partner & Associate, Ipsita Sarkar has been published by Legal Era.