TN's 12-Hour Daily Work Factories Bill: Why Was It Proposed and Later Repealed?

TN's proposed factory bill was strongly opposed by the DMK’s alliance partners as an “anti-labour” move.

"History knows the kind of struggle to stop the exploitation of labourers and regularise the eight-hour work day. Extending it to 12 hours is essentially equivalent to making a law out of something unlawful. This raises concerns about TN's interest in labourers' welfare and pulls us centuries backward as a state."

Rajesh Madhubalan, a labourer from Tamil Nadu

Amid stiff opposition from trade unions, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin announced on May Day, 1 May, the withdrawal of the factories bill. Earlier, the controversial bill had sought to amend the Factories Act of 1948, allowing a 12-hour work day instead of the mandatory eight hours of work.

According to the amended bill, which is now on hold, the DMK government had previously stated that the working hours in a week would remain unchanged for the workers. However, they would have the option to work for four days in a week and avail three off days.

"It is not about 48 hours per week, the hard won right is eight hours per day!"

V Shankar, President, All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU)

MK Stalin-led DMK government's proposal was denounced as an 'anti labour' move by the trade unions, Opposition parties and even DMK allies including Congress, Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, and Indian Union Muslim League.

What Were the Proposed Changes in the Amended Bill?

Speaking to The Quint, All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) President, V Shankar said that the amendment to the Factories Act which was proposed earlier would have empowered the state government to exempt some industries from applying sections 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, and 59 of the Factories Act. The Tamil Nadu government also proposed to insert a new section 65A in the Factories Act, 1948, to enable factories to have flexible working hours.

The sections that were likely to be exempt, primarily dealt with working hours in a day, hours of work spread over a day, and overtime work.

• Sec. 51 restricts working more than 48-hours in any week.

• Sec. 52 makes Sunday a weekly holiday.

• Sec. 54 has a cap of nine-hours of work in a day, including lunch and tea breaks.

• Sec. 55 says workers shouldn't be allowed to work for more than five-hours without a break.

• Sec. 56 doesn't allow work spread over more than 10.5-hours.

• Sec. 59 talks about extra wages for overtime work performed over and above nine-hours and more than 48-hours in a week.

Why Was the Amended Bill Opposed?

The trade union chief alleged that the amendment was essentially an anti-labour move that would have snatched the hard-earned rights won by working class through several struggles and sacrifices.

He also said that the amendment was in violation of Section 39(e) of the Constitution of Directive Principles, which talks about the need to protect the health of the working population. It was against the basic tenants of social justice. He further highlighted that social justice is not limited to reservations alone, it encompasses all the rights of the working population.

Shankar said:

"For enacting the law for eight-hour work, Communist leader Singaravelar hoisted the May Day flag for the first time in the country in 1923 in Chennai Marina Beach. The first trade union in the country was also formed by him in Chennai. He was jailed and exiled by the British."

However, the DMK, which is from a state that has witnessed several workers' movements and is a party that talks about social justice, was unjust to the working class when they passed the amended bill, he alleged, before the state government announced the bill's withdrawal.

Who Would Have Potentially Benefitted From the Bill? 

The argument of the DMK government before the bill was withdrawn, according to Shankar, was that the state will benefit from such an amendment by attracting investment from multinational companies. Shankar said that the bill was clearly beneficial to profit-driven corporate giants. "The state government, in an attempt to woo the multi-national corporations, indirectly tried to destroy the lives and rights of the crores of workers and the downtrodden," he said.

"The argument of increasing productivity with longer work hours has a cost aspect attached to it as workers need to be paid extra every time they work overtime," said lawyer Sanjoy Ghose.

Shankar further added that the amendment would have had far-reaching consequences for workers earnings, health, livelihood, and morale as it protects profit-hungry and greedy corporates.

However, the trade unions now have expressed relief and said that the government’s decision to revoke the implementation of the factory bill is a welcome move.