Clearly, the stated intentions of the Constitution, and therefore of the legal system which it underlies, are inclined to recognised, uphold and protect the rights of workers as far as possible. The actual implementation, is of course another matter.
 
The ILO declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 1998, declares inter alia that all Member States whether they have ratified the relevant conventions or not have an obligation to respect, to promote and to realise the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those conventions, namely: (a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the effective abolition of child labour; and (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
 
The Government of India ratified Convention 122 on Employment and Social Policy in 1998. Article 1 of the Convention lays down that:
 
(1) With a view to stimulating economic growth and development, raising levels of living, meeting manpower requirements, and overcoming unemployment and underemployment, each Member shall declare and pursue, as a major goal an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment.
 
(2) The said policy shall aim at ensuring that: (a) there is work for all who are available for and seeking work, (b) such work is as productive as possible (c) There is freedom of choice of the employment and the fullest possible opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use skill and the endowments in a job for which he is well suited, irrespective of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.
 
On the basis of such commitments, the Second National Labour Commission actually declares that the following rights of workers have been recognised as inalienable and must, therefore, accrue to every worker under any system of labour laws and labour policy. These are:
(a) Right to work of one's choice
(b) Right against discrimination
(c) Prohibition of child labour
(d) Just and humane conditions of work
(e) Right to social security
(f) Protection of wages including right to guaranteed wages
(g) Right to redress at of grievances
(h) Right to organise and form trade unions
(i) Right to collective bargaining, and
(j) Right to participation in management.
 
While these add up to a formidable array of rights accepted by the Indian Constitution for workers, the problem is that they are rarely achieved or enforced. This is one of the most common – and most effective – criticisms of labour legislation in India, that it is applied only very selectively, does not cover most workers, and thereby ends up penalising those employers who employ relatively larger numbers of workers and thereby fall under the legal and administrative net.
 
In fact, it is not the case the various provisions are actually applicable only to workers in the formal sector. Laws like the Minimum Wages Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, the Contract Labour Act and so on apply to workers in both the organised and the unorganised sector; even the Industrial Disputes Act applies to large sectors of unorganised labour. However, the sheer practical difficulties and high costs associated with implementation and enforcement of such legal provisions ensures that most workers do not benefit from them. Further, the fact that informal or unorganised activities are growing in terms of total employment, and that in any case a substantial part of unpaid household work is still not even recognised as employment, means that the problem of enforcement of such provisions is becoming more rather than less difficult.
 
Nevertheless, there are sectors of the economy – notably formal activities in industry and services – where labour laws are enforced. It is precisely with regard to this segment, that the current debate on labour legislation is centred. Currently, there is no uniformity of pattern in the employment limits prescribed by various labour laws. They range from covering establishments employing 5 persons as in the Motor Transport Workers Act and Inter-state Migrant Workers Act to 10, 20 or 100 as in the Factories Act, Building and other Construction Workers Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act). There is even a history of wage limits being prescribed in laws like EPF Act, ESI Act, Payment of Bonus Act etc.
 
The existing set of labour laws should be broadly grouped into four or five groups of laws pertaining to (i) industrial relations, (ii) wages and other remuneration, (iii) social security, (iv) safety and (v) welfare and working conditions.  The laws that are currently most contentious are those relating to industrial relations (specifically, the conditions of hiring and firing) and to wages. In each of these, once again, there is a plethora of legislation, at both the Central Government level and in various State Governments. The basic central laws relating to the subject are the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Trade Unions Act 1926 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
 
The Second Labour Commission Report examined the issue of changes in industrial relations in some detail. Some of its conclusions are so significant that they are worth quoting in full:
 
"A review of industrial relations in the pre-reform decade (1981-90) reveals that as against 402.1 million man-days lost during the decade (1981-90) i.e. in the pre-reform period, the number of man days lost declined to 210 million during 1991 to 2000 - i.e. the post-reform period. But more man-days have been lost in lockouts than in strikes. .. A large number of workers have lost their jobs as a result of VRS, retrenchment and closures both in the organised and the unorganised sector. The exact number is not available. According to our information, no data on this subject has been compiled by any State Government. .. We have received a large number of complaints on VR schemes. We have also been told of elements of indirect compulsion, pressure tactics, innovative forms of mental harassment, compelling employees to resign by seeking to terminate them, and in some cases, physical torture and threats of violence against themselves or dependents.
 
We shall make a few other general observations on matters that have come before us about the industrial relations scenario.
 
1) It is increasingly noticed that trade unions do not normally give a call for strike because they are afraid that a strike may lead to the closure of the unit.
 
2) Service sector workers feel they have become outsiders and are becoming increasingly disinterested in trade union activities.
 
3) There is a trend to resolve major disputes through negotiations at bipartite level. The nature of disputes or demands is changing.
 
4) The attitude of the Government, especially of the Central Government, towards workers and employers seems to have undergone a change. Now, permissions for closure or retrenchment are more easily granted.
 
5) The Conciliation Machinery is more eager to consider problems of employers and today consider issues like increase in productivity, cost reduction, financial difficulties of the employer, competition, market fluctuations, etc.
 
6) Recovery proceedings against employers who could not pay heavy dues of workers are not being seriously pursued by the industrial relations machinery, if the financial position of the employer is very bad.
 
7) The labour adjudication machinery is more willing to entertain the concerns of industry."
 
All of these observations point to a shift in the relative bargaining power in industrial relations, away from workers, to employers. Yet it is worth noting that despite this, the aggregate employment experience has been dismal and deteriorating. It is because the overall employment generation in the system is getting even more unsatisfactory than it has been in the past, that demands are being made for further legal changes that will affect the conditions of hiring and firing of the small group of relatively protected workers employed in organised industry and services.
 
It is being argued that these laws, which restrict employers' rights to dismiss workers at will and stipulate some degree of permanency of employment, act as a major drag on the profitability of the organised sector and on its ability to compete with more flexible labour relations elsewhere. In this perception, a shift towards a more universal contract-based system of labour relations, with no assumptions of permanency of employment, is required to ensure economic progress based on private enterprise within the current context.