The Evolving Paradigm Of Industrial Relations: A Comparative Analysis Of Trade Unions Under The New Labour Codes And Global Frameworks

1. Introduction

The Indian labour law regime is currently undergoing its most significant structural transformation in over 70 years. In a historic move to improve the "Ease of Doing Business" while expanding the social safety net, the Central Government has consolidated 29 distinct central labour laws into four comprehensive Codes.

This consolidation aims to simplify a complex web of archaic regulations, ensuring uniformity in definitions and compliance across the board. The four pillars of this new regime are:

1. The Code on Wages, 2019: The Code consolidates four laws, including the Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages Act, to unify wage protection. Unlike previous regimes that limited minimum wages to specific schedules, the Code extends this right to all employees in every sector. It also introduces a mandatory central "Floor Wage," preventing state governments from fixing minimum wages below a standard national threshold.
2. The Code on Social Security, 2020: The code amalgamates nine distinct acts, like the EPF and ESI Acts, which modernizes the welfare framework to match the evolving economy. Its most significant reform is extending social security benefits to gig and platform workers (e.g., delivery partners) for the first time. To sustain this, it mandates a dedicated Social Security Fund financed by contributions from aggregators based on their turnover.
3. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020: The OSH Code subsumes thirteen labour laws, including the Factories Act, to reduce the compliance burden through a "Single Registration" system for establishments. It significantly reforms workforce flexibility by permitting women to work night shifts across all sectors, subject to safety protocols and consent, thereby removing archaic gender-based restrictions.
4. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020: The Code consolidates the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. This Code fundamentally restructures the collective bargaining framework. It introduces a statutory mechanism for the recognition of a "Sole Negotiating Union," imposes stringent procedural prerequisites for industrial action, and streamlines the dispute adjudication process.

2. Trade Unions: Restructuring Recognition and Representation

The transition from the Trade Unions Act, 1926, to the IRC 2020 marks a shift from a laissez-faire registration model to a statutorily regulated recognition model.

2.1 The Erstwhile Regime: Multiplicity and Fragmentation

Under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the legal threshold for registration was minimal. Any seven members could form a registered trade union. Critically, the Act lacked any central provision mandating employers to recognize a specific union for collective bargaining. This lacuna resulted in "multiplicity of unions," where inter-union rivalry often superseded the employer-employee dialogue, leading to fragmented collective bargaining and operational instability.

2.2 The New Paradigm: Statutory Recognition (Section 14)

The IRC 2020 introduces Section 14, which establishes a legal framework for the recognition of a "Sole Negotiating Union" or a "Negotiating Council".

• Sole Negotiating Union: The Code mandates that if a registered trade union holds a membership of 51% or more of the workers on the muster roll of an industrial establishment, the employer shall recognize such union as the sole negotiating union.
• Negotiating Council: In the event that no single union meets the 51% threshold, the Code prescribes the constitution of a Negotiating Council. This council is composed of representatives from registered trade unions that command the support of not less than 20% of the total workers. The representation is proportional (one representative for each 20% block).

2.3 Legal & Practical Implications

This provision aligns India with global best practices of "majority representation".

• For Employers: It creates a "Single Point of Contact," eliminating the ambiguity of negotiating with minority unions.
• For Unions: It significantly raises the bar for relevance. Small, splinter unions with less than 20% membership lose their locus standi in formal negotiations, likely leading to a consolidation of smaller unions into larger federations.

3. Industrial Action: The Tightening of the "Right to Strike"

The IRC 2020 introduces rigorous procedural hurdles for conducting legal strikes, effectively rendering "flash strikes" illegal.

3.1 Comparative Legal Framework

3.2 Legal Analysis of Section 62

Section 62 of the IRC 2020 formalizes the restrictions previously limited to public utility services. The prohibition on striking during the pendency of conciliation proceedings is critical. Since the conciliation officer must be notified immediately upon the receipt of a strike notice, the conciliation process typically commences instantly, thereby triggering the statutory bar on the strike.

Furthermore, the reclassification of "mass casual leave" as a strike closes a longstanding loophole where unions utilized mass absenteeism as a protest tactic to evade the penalties associated with illegal strikes.

4. Dispute Resolution: Streamlining Adjudication

The IRC 2020 aims to de-clog the judicial system by emphasizing internal grievance redressal and simplifying the tribunal structure.

4.1 Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC)

Under Section 4, every industrial establishment employing 20 or more workers must constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee.

• Structure: The committee shall comprise equal representation of employers and workers.
• Gender Equity: The Code explicitly mandates that there must be adequate representation of women workers therein, proportionate to their employment numbers.
• Limitation: The limitation period for filing grievances is set at one year.

4.2 Industrial Tribunals

The Code abolishes the multiple adjudicatory bodies (Labour Courts, Courts of Inquiry, and Boards of Conciliation) prevalent under the ID Act, 1947. Instead, it establishes only Industrial Tribunals consisting of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. This bifurcation facilitates faster disposal of cases by involving administrative experts in technical labour matters.

5. Global Comparative Analysis

To contextualize the IRC 2020, it is imperative to benchmark it against International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and major global jurisdictions.

5.1 The ILO Benchmark

Convention 87 (Freedom of Association) & Convention 98 (Collective Bargaining): India has not ratified these core conventions.

Assessment: The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association generally views mandatory cooling-off periods and universal strike restrictions as potential infringements, unless limited to "essential services." The IRC 2020's extension of strike restrictions to all sectors (manufacturing, services, IT) may be viewed as diverging from the ILO's principle that the right to strike is intrinsic to freedom of association.

5.2 Jurisdictional Comparison

1. United Kingdom (The "Ballot" Model)
   • Framework: The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, 1992.
   • Comparison: The UK mandates strict pre-strike balloting. A strike is lawful only if 50% of eligible members vote, and a majority supports action. The IRC 2020 mirrors this rigorous approach through its mandatory notice and conciliation bars, prioritizing procedural compliance over immediate action.
2. United States (The "Exclusive Representation" Model)
   • Framework: The National Labour Relations Act (NLRA).
   • Comparison: The US operates on an "Exclusive Representation" principle. If a union wins a certification election (50% + 1 vote), it represents all employees in that unit. India's "Sole Negotiating Union" (51% rule) is a direct legislative adoption of this US model, moving away from the European model of pluralistic representation.
3. Singapore (The "Tripartite" Model)
   • Framework: The Industrial Relations Act.
   • Comparison: Singapore functions on "Tripartism" (State-Employer-Union collaboration). Strikes are legal but extremely rare due to compulsory arbitration. The IRC 2020 attempts to emulate this by funnelling disputes toward Arbitration and Tribunals rather than strikes, though India lacks the institutionalized trust inherent in the Singaporean ecosystem.
4. China (The "State Monopoly" Model)
   • Framework: The Trade Union Law of the PRC.
   • Comparison: China permits only one trade union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which is subordinate to the State. Independent bargaining is nonexistent. India retains its democratic character by allowing union plurality; however, the high registration thresholds in the IRC 2020 serve to centralize union power, albeit democratically.

6. Conclusion

The enactment of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, signifies a decisive legislative intent to formalize and sanitize the industrial relations landscape in India.

By introducing the Sole Negotiating Union, the Code resolves the perennial issue of union recognition, offering employers the stability of a single bargaining partner. Concurrently, the rigorous restrictions on Strikes (Section 62) and the expanded definition of industrial action signal a shift toward a regime where production continuity is paramount.

However, the efficacy of this new regime rests on implementation. While the statutes borrow heavily from the "Exclusive Representation" models of the US and the procedural strictness of the UK, the success of the Code depends on the impartial functioning of the Industrial Tribunals and the genuine empowerment of Negotiating Councils. For legal and HR practitioners, the immediate imperative is to audit existing collective bargaining agreements and prepare for the data-driven verification processes required for statutory union recognition.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.