Inter-State Migrant Workers: Enhanced Protections and Registration Mandates

Introduction

The migration of workers across state boundaries in India represents one of the most significant demographic and economic phenomena in contemporary times. Workers from economically disadvantaged regions like Odisha, Bihar, West Bengal, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh frequently relocate to more developed states seeking better employment opportunities and wages. This movement, while economically necessary, has historically exposed millions of workers to exploitation, underpayment, and hazardous working conditions. The legislative framework governing inter-state migrant workers has evolved substantially over the decades, beginning with the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, and more recently transitioning to the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. These laws represent the government’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of this vulnerable workforce segment.

Historical Context and Legislative Evolution

Genesis of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979

The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, emerged from recommendations made by the Compact Committee, which was constituted in February 1977 to examine the exploitative practices prevalent in inter-state labour migration [1]. The Committee recognized that existing legislation, particularly the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, was insufficient to address the unique challenges faced by workers who crossed state boundaries for employment. These workers, often illiterate and unorganized, were subjected to severe exploitation by contractors, sardars, and khatadars who acted as intermediaries. The Act received Presidential assent on June 11, 1979, and came into force on October 2, 1980 [2].

The 1979 Act defined an inter-state migrant workman as any person recruited by or through a contractor in one state under an agreement for employment in an establishment located in another state, whether with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. This definition was crucial because it established the legal identity of these workers and brought them under protective legislative cover. The Act mandated that establishments and contractors employing five or more inter-state migrant workers on any day during the preceding twelve months must register with authorities and obtain appropriate licenses. This registration requirement was designed to create accountability and ensure that workers received their entitled benefits.

Landmark Judicial Intervention

The judicial recognition of migrant workers’ rights reached a watershed moment in 1982 with the Supreme Court’s judgment in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [3]. This case arose from a writ petition filed by a civil liberties organization that investigated the working conditions of laborers employed in construction projects for the 1982 Asian Games in Delhi. The investigation revealed shocking violations of labor laws, including payment of wages below the statutory minimum, employment of children under fourteen years of age in hazardous construction work, discrimination against women workers who received lower wages than men for identical work, and complete denial of facilities mandated under the Contract Labour Act and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case expanded the constitutional protection of workers’ rights in unprecedented ways. The Court held that violations of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, and the Contract Labour Act, 1970, amounted to breaches of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. Following the earlier judgments in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, the Court recognized that the right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity. The beneficial provisions in labor legislation were therefore intended to ensure that workers could maintain this dignity, and their non-implementation violated fundamental constitutional rights.

Perhaps most significantly, the judgment established that the state cannot evade its constitutional obligations by delegating work to private contractors. The Court held that the Union of India, Delhi Administration, and Delhi Development Authority, as principal employers, bore responsibility for ensuring that contractors complied with all applicable labor laws. This principle of state accountability has since become foundational in Indian labor law jurisprudence and continues to guide enforcement mechanisms today.

Key Provisions Under the 1979 Act

Registration and Licensing Framework

The Act established a dual registration and licensing system that applied to both principal employers and contractors. Every establishment employing five or more inter-state migrant workers was required to register with the registering officer in whose jurisdiction the establishment was located. This registration had to provide detailed information about the establishment’s nature, the work processes involved, and the number of workers typically employed. Similarly, contractors recruiting workers from one state for employment in another had to obtain licenses from the licensing officer, specifying the nature of work, wage arrangements, and facilities to be provided to workers [4].

The licensing framework contained several important protective features. License applications had to be accompanied by certificates from principal employers confirming their commitment to comply with all provisions of the Act. Licenses were granted only after investigation by licensing officers and could include conditions regarding recruitment agreements, remuneration structures, working hours, wage fixation, and essential amenities. Licenses remained valid for specified periods and could be renewed, but they could also be revoked or suspended if contractors violated statutory provisions or license conditions.

Wage Protections and Financial Safeguards

The Act mandated that inter-state migrant workers performing work of the same or similar nature as other workers in an establishment must receive equal wages, implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work regardless of the worker’s place of origin. Where workers performed work that was neither the same nor similar to that of other workers in the establishment, they had to receive at least the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or the wages payable for similar work in that state, whichever was higher.

Beyond basic wages, the Act required contractors to pay displacement allowance equivalent to fifty percent of the monthly wages or seventy-five rupees, whichever was higher, at the time of recruitment. This displacement allowance recognized the disruption workers experienced when leaving their native places for employment elsewhere. Additionally, contractors had to provide journey allowance covering both outward and return journeys between the worker’s home state and the place of employment, with wages to be paid as if workers were on duty during the journey period. These financial protections were designed to prevent the exploitation that had been common when workers bore their own travel costs and arrived at work sites already indebted to contractors or intermediaries.

Welfare Facilities and Living Conditions

Recognizing that migrant workers often lived in deplorable conditions far from their homes and families, the Act mandated contractors and principal employers to provide suitable residential accommodation. These accommodations had to meet basic standards of habitability and could not be provided on payment by workers. Medical facilities were also required, ensuring that workers had access to healthcare without bearing additional costs. Protective clothing had to be provided where work involved exposure to hazardous materials or extreme conditions. The Act also required contractors to issue passbooks to every inter-state migrant worker, containing complete details of the worker’s employment, wages, allowances, and other benefits, creating a personal record that workers could use to verify their entitlements.

Transition to the OSH Code, 2020

Consolidation and Modernization

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, received Presidential assent on September 28, 2020, as part of the government’s ambitious labor law reform agenda [5]. The Code consolidated thirteen major labor laws, including the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, the Contract Labour Act, 1970, the Factories Act, 1948, the Mines Act, 1952, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, into a single legislative framework containing 143 provisions. This consolidation aimed to simplify compliance for employers while maintaining and in some cases enhancing worker protections.

The OSH Code applies to establishments employing ten or more inter-state migrant workers, a higher threshold than the five workers specified in the 1979 Act. However, this threshold does not apply to establishments engaged in hazardous or life-threatening activities, where the Code’s provisions apply regardless of worker numbers. The definition of inter-state migrant worker was expanded to include not only workers recruited through contractors but also individuals who migrated on their own initiative from one state and obtained employment in another state while earning up to eighteen thousand rupees per month.

Enhanced Benefits and Protections

The OSH Code significantly expanded the basket of benefits available to inter-state migrant workers. Workers are now entitled to all benefits available to regular workers in the establishment, including coverage under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [6]. This represents a major advancement because it brings migrant workers into the social security net from which they were often excluded under previous arrangements.

The Code mandates that employers or contractors must pay inter-state migrant workers a lump sum amount annually as journey allowance for travel between their native place and place of employment. This journey allowance provision recognizes that workers may need to return home periodically for family obligations and festivals. The Code also requires contractors to ensure suitable working conditions that account for the fact that workers are operating in states different from their own, acknowledging the additional challenges migrant workers face.

One particularly important innovation in the OSH Code is the provision for portability of benefits for inter-state migrant workers engaged in building and construction work. These workers can now access benefits from the building and construction cess fund in the destination state where they are employed, rather than being limited to benefits in their home state. This portability addresses a longstanding problem where workers contributed to welfare funds but could not access benefits because they had moved to different states.

Registration and Identification Requirements

The OSH Code requires that inter-state migrant workers be registered and provided with identification cards by employers or contractors. This registration can be done either by the workers themselves or by their employers, creating flexibility while ensuring that all migrant workers are documented [7]. The identification cards serve multiple purposes: they establish workers’ legal employment status, facilitate access to benefits and protections, and help authorities monitor compliance with labor laws. Proper registration also enables workers to be traced and provided with support services when needed.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Accountability

Inspection and Compliance Monitoring

Both the 1979 Act and the OSH Code established inspection systems to monitor compliance. The 1979 Act provided for appointment of inspectors with powers to enter premises, examine workers, inspect registers and documents, and seize materials relevant to investigations. Inspectors could require the production of any prescribed register or document and take statements from workers to verify compliance. The OSH Code modernized this approach by creating the position of Inspector-cum-Facilitator, reflecting a shift toward a less adversarial enforcement model [8]. These officials not only inspect for compliance but also guide employers on best practices, recognizing that many violations result from ignorance rather than willful disregard of the law.

The establishment of National and State Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Boards under the OSH Code created institutional structures to advise governments on occupational safety and health matters. These boards include representatives from workers, employers, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse perspectives inform policy development and implementation strategies.

Penalties and Deterrent Measures

The 1979 Act prescribed penalties for various violations, including imprisonment for up to one year and fines up to one thousand rupees for employing inter-state migrant workers without proper licenses or violating license conditions. Additional daily fines could be imposed for continuing contraventions. Contravention of other provisions could result in imprisonment up to two years and fines up to two thousand rupees. These penalties, while significant when the Act was enacted, have become less effective as deterrents due to inflation and changing economic conditions.

The OSH Code substantially increased penalty amounts to reflect contemporary realities. Violations can now attract fines up to two or three lakh rupees depending on the severity of the contravention [9]. In cases of serious violations causing accidents or injuries, imprisonment provisions remain, particularly where negligence leads to fatal accidents or serious bodily injury. The Code also introduced provisions for compounding certain offenses, allowing settlements through monetary penalties without criminal prosecution in appropriate cases.

Practical Challenges and Implementation Gaps

Endemic Under-Enforcement

Despite robust legal frameworks, enforcement of protections for inter-state migrant workers has remained inadequate throughout most states. Labor department officials often lack sufficient resources and personnel to conduct regular inspections of construction sites, factories, and other establishments where migrant workers are employed. The temporary and mobile nature of construction work, combined with frequent relocation of workers, makes monitoring particularly challenging. Many workers remain unaware of their legal rights and entitlements, limiting their ability to demand compliance from employers and contractors.

Corruption and collusion between labor department officials and employers have also undermined enforcement efforts. The vested interests of some officials who benefit financially from non-compliance create structural obstacles to effective implementation. Additionally, the political economy of construction and infrastructure development often prioritizes rapid project completion over worker welfare, creating pressure to overlook violations. These systemic issues were acknowledged even in the Supreme Court’s 1982 judgment, which noted serious doubts about whether provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act were being properly implemented.

Documentation and Access Barriers

Many migrant workers lack proper documentation, making registration difficult even when they seek to comply with legal requirements. Birth certificates, identity proofs, and residence documents may be unavailable or difficult to obtain, particularly for workers from remote rural areas. The digital divide also creates barriers, as online registration systems require internet access and digital literacy that many workers lack. Language differences between home states and destination states compound these difficulties, as workers may not understand registration procedures or the content of employment agreements they are asked to sign.

Contemporary Relevance and COVID-19 Lessons

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent national lockdown in March 2020 starkly exposed the vulnerabilities of inter-state migrant workers. Millions of workers found themselves stranded in destination states without work, wages, food, or shelter when economic activities ceased abruptly. The mass exodus of workers attempting to return to their home states on foot, sometimes covering hundreds of kilometers, revealed the absence of social safety nets and the failure of existing protective mechanisms. Many workers were not registered in either their home states or destination states, making it impossible for authorities to locate them and provide assistance. The crisis demonstrated that despite decades of legislation, the fundamental problems of documentation, benefit portability, and access to social security remained unresolved.

The pandemic prompted renewed attention to migrant worker issues and accelerated efforts to implement the OSH Code’s provisions. State governments began initiatives to register migrant workers more systematically, often using digital platforms and mobile applications. The National Database for Unorganized Workers, developed under the Code on Social Security, 2020, aims to create a unified registry that can track workers across state boundaries and facilitate benefit delivery. These technological solutions, if properly implemented, could address longstanding documentation challenges and enable more effective enforcement of workers’ rights.

Conclusion

The legal framework protecting inter-state migrant workers in India has evolved substantially from the enactment of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, through landmark judicial interpretations, to the recent consolidation under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. The legislation now provides for registration, licensing, wage protections, welfare facilities, social security benefits, and portability of entitlements. Judicial decisions, particularly the Supreme Court’s judgment in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, have firmly established that labor law violations constitute breaches of fundamental rights and that the state cannot escape responsibility by delegating work to private contractors. However, significant gaps persist between legal mandates and ground realities. Effective implementation requires adequate resources for labor departments, simplified registration procedures, better documentation systems, stronger penalties for violations, and most importantly, genuine political commitment to prioritizing worker welfare. Only through sustained efforts to close these implementation gaps can the promise of dignity and decent work become a reality for millions of inter-state migrant workers who contribute so substantially to India’s economic development.

References

[1] Chief Labour Commissioner. “Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act.” Government of India. Available at: https://clc.gov.in/clc/acts-rules/interstate-migrant-workmen-act

[2] India Code. “The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979.” Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1750

[3] People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1982 SC 1473, (1982) 3 SCC 235. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496663/

[4] Government of India. “The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979.” India Code. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13209/1/the_inter-state_migrant_workmen_regulation_of_employment_and_conditions__of_service_act_1979.pdf

[5] Lexology. “The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.” Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5afb0ab-a3aa-47d7-836b-9419b09041d1

[6] Lexology. “Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 – An Overview.” Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b3ba50cd-c9a7-467b-962b-51d8949b636b

[7] Team APAC. “Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code, 2020.” Available at: https://teamapac.com/glossaries/occupational-safety-health-and-working-conditions-code-2020/

[8] India Briefing. “Key Features of the OSH Code, 2020: India’s HR Laws.” Available at: https://www.india-briefing.com/news/the-occupational-safety-health-working-conditions-osh-code-2020-a-primer-31265.html/

[9] GreytHR. “The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.” Available at: https://www.greythr.com/wiki/acts/occupational-safety-health-and-working-conditions-code-2020/