Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
In August 2025, forty migrant workers from Odisha and Chhattisgarh, including women and a minor, were rescued from two shrimp farms near Ananthavaram village in Tanguturu mandal of Andhra Pradesh’s Prakasam district.
Recruited through intermediaries, they had reportedly been subjected to conditions resembling bonded labour. Three to five families were housed in small rooms, wages were withheld, and the workers were allegedly provided inadequate or spoiled food. Restrictions were imposed on their movement, and those who resisted reportedly faced physical abuse.
advertisement
IT TOOK AN ESCAPE TO EXPOSE THE EXPLOITATION
The exploitation came to light when one worker from Bastar district managed to escape, returned to Chhattisgarh and lodged a complaint with the District Collector. The Collector contacted the Prakasam district administration, leading to a rescue operation involving revenue, police and labour officials, along with representatives of voluntary organisations.
The rescued workers were taken to a relief centre in Ongole. Relief certificates were subsequently issued, and directions were given for payment of outstanding wages and arrangements for their return to their home States.
The rescue followed a complaint by a worker who managed to escape, rather than proactive intervention by the enforcement machinery.
Shrimp farming is a regulated activity, and the aquaculture sector receives substantial government support, including subsidies. This raises an uncomfortable question: how could such serious exploitation remain undetected, and how effectively have the laws enacted to protect inter-State migrant workers been implemented?
A LAW MORE THAN FOUR DECADES OLD
The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, was enacted against the background of serious exploitation of workers recruited through contractors, particularly the Dadan labour system prevalent in Odisha and some other States.
A Generous Package of Protections
The 1979 Act was remarkable for the range of protections it offered. It applied to establishments and contractors employing five or more inter-State migrant workers.
Establishments were required to register, contractors to obtain licences, and workers to be provided with passbooks containing essential particulars of their employment.
The Act provided for wages and conditions of service comparable to those of local workers doing similar work, subject to the applicable minimum wages.
It also provided a displacement allowance equivalent to half a month’s wages or Rs 75, whichever was higher, payable at recruitment.
Journey allowance covered travel from the worker’s home State to the place of employment and the return journey, with wages payable during the journey period as if the worker were on duty.
Suitable residential accommodation, free medical facilities and protective clothing were among the other safeguards.
The legislation also placed responsibilities on principal employers where contractors failed to discharge specified obligations.
THE PROMISE OF LEGISLATION AND ITS GROUND-LEVEL DELIVERY
On June 20, 1986, during a special inspection of a large establishment also employing migrant workers, I came across substantial expenditure recorded in its accounts under the heads of ‘hostel rent’ and ‘food’. When supporting documents were called for, the establishment could not produce them. I still retain the contemporaneous inspection report.
The experience highlighted an important distinction. An entry in an account book, a licence or a registration certificate does not by itself establish that the statutory benefit has reached the worker.
IT IS A CONTINUING STORY…
Evidence of inadequate implementation continued to emerge over the years.
The Standing Committee on Labour, in its report presented to Parliament in December 2011, expressed serious dissatisfaction with the implementation of the 1979 Act.
It observed that comprehensive data on inter-State migrant workers were unavailable and that the Government lacked adequate information on licensed and unlicensed contractors.
It also questioned the effectiveness of efforts to secure registration of establishments, contractors and workers.
Considering a proposal to replace the terms ‘workman’ and ‘workmen’ with ‘worker’ and ‘workers’, the Committee pointed out that a mere change in terminology would not address substantive problems involving registration, wages, journey and displacement allowances, medical facilities and accommodation.
The Committee recommended a comprehensive amendment rather than a change confined to terminology.
THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL DATABASE
A study commissioned by the Labour Department, Government of Odisha, with National Law University Odisha as its technical partner, during 2019–20 had highlighted the need for a reliable migrant-worker database, effective registration, livelihood opportunities and improved access to social protection.
The study covered 7,648 households and 31,347 persons across 90 gram panchayats.
Its findings reinforced the concerns raised earlier by the parliamentary committee.
…AND THEN CAME THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
The vulnerability of migrant workers became unmistakable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to information collected by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment, approximately 1.14 crore inter-State migrant workers returned to their home States during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020.
The scale of this movement highlighted the size and vulnerability of the migrant workforce.
THE SUPREME COURT’S MANDATE
In its judgment of June 29, 2021, in In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, the Supreme Court directed the development and implementation of a national database for unorganised and migrant workers.
Registration was considered essential to enable these workers to access the welfare schemes intended for them.
e-SHRAM: A LONG-AWAITED INITIATIVE
The Union Ministry of Labour and Employment launched the e-Shram portal on August 26, 2021, to create a National Database of Unorganised Workers, including migrant workers, construction workers, agricultural workers, domestic workers, and gig and platform workers.
This was followed by the launch of the e-Shram One-Stop Solution on October 21, 2024, integrating access to various social-security and welfare schemes through a single platform.
By August 18, 2026, the portal had recorded 31.89 crore registrations of unorganised workers. This is a significant achievement, although the total includes many categories of workers and cannot be treated as the number of inter-State migrants.
THE NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORK: GAINS AND GAPS
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which came into force on November 21, 2025, subsumed the 1979 Act along with twelve other labour enactments.
Wider Definition
Under the 1979 Act, the definition was essentially confined to workers recruited in one State through contractors for employment in another. Workers who travelled independently and secured employment at their destination were outside that definition.
The new Code includes workers who migrate independently and obtain employment in another State, besides those recruited directly by employers or through contractors. This recognises an important reality of labour migration.
Safeguards Retained And Facilities Added
The new Code retains certain safeguards under the 1979 Act, including the obligation to ensure suitable working conditions for inter-State migrant workers and to report fatal accidents or serious bodily injuries to the specified authorities of both States and to the worker’s next of kin. Journey allowance also continues, although its conditions have changed, as discussed below.
Section 60 additionally makes it explicit that migrant workers must receive the benefits available to other workers of the establishment, including applicable social-security benefits and medical check-ups.
Section 62 provides for schemes that enable workers to access the public distribution system in either their home or destination State and ensure the portability of specified construction-worker welfare benefits.
Section 63 enables the appropriate Government to provide toll-free helplines for migrant workers.
Databases of Inter-State Migrant Workers
Section 21(2) requires the Central and State Governments to maintain records or databases of inter-State migrant workers. It also permits self-registration through the prescribed portal, including registration by self-employed persons who have migrated from another State.
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026, notified on May 8, also require employers covered by the Central Rules to furnish electronic statistics concerning inter-State migrant workers through a designated portal.
These are useful provisions. Effective registration, reliable information and portability of benefits can greatly improve the position of migrant workers.
Where Some Protections Have Been Reduced
However, the wider definition is accompanied by certain limitations.
Under Section 2(zf), the definition of an inter-State migrant worker includes a monthly wage ceiling of Rs 18,000, or such higher amount as the Central Government may notify.
Further, under Section 59, the special provisions for inter-State migrant workers in Part II of Chapter XI apply to establishments employing ten or more such workers, compared with the threshold of five under the earlier Act.
Thus, while the definition has become wider, the increase in the numerical threshold limits the reach of the special protections.
The new Code has no corresponding provision for the displacement allowance specifically provided for under Section 14 of the earlier Act.
The earlier Act also expressly provided for wages during both the outward and return journeys.
Under Rule 102 of the 2026 Central Rules, journey allowance becomes payable after completion of at least 180 days of service in the preceding twelve months, once in twelve months.
The Rules allow service with a previous employer to be counted towards this requirement when a worker changes employment, provided the worker has not already availed of the allowance and satisfies the prescribed conditions.
This is a useful safeguard, but the 180-day requirement may disadvantage workers in short-term or seasonal employment.
More importantly, the earlier entitlement to wages during the journey period has not been expressly retained in the same form.
Similarly, the earlier statutory requirement for a migrant worker’s passbook and certain specific obligations relating to accommodation, free medical facilities and protective clothing do not reappear as migrant-specific protections in the same form, although other provisions of the Code and applicable rules may provide relevant safeguards.
These changes deserve careful examination from the standpoint of the workers for whom the special legislation was originally enacted.
THE CASE OF INTRA-STATE MIGRANTS
A report published in The New Indian Express on October 12, 2026, on drought-induced migration from villages in Kurnool district highlights another dimension of the problem.
Crop failures and the loss of agricultural employment are forcing families to leave their villages in search of livelihoods. The report identifies Vijayawada and Guntur in Andhra Pradesh, as well as Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Ballari, Mumbai and Delhi in other States, among the destinations of migrating workers.
Thus, economic distress can drive both intra-State and inter-State migration.
Workers migrating within the same State may encounter difficulties comparable to those faced by inter-State migrants. Yet, the special statutory protections for inter-State migrant workers do not extend to them merely because they have migrated. This limitation existed under the 1979 Act as well.
THE WILL TO IMPLEMENT IS WHAT MATTERS
The broader question, however, remains one of implementation.
Publicly available aggregate e-Shram registration figures do not establish how comprehensively inter-State migrants have been identified, how effectively the specific requirements of Section 21(2) have been implemented, or how many eligible workers have actually received the various statutory benefits.
Periodic publication of State-wise information on registration, inspections, violations, prosecutions and delivery of benefits would make meaningful assessment possible.
Coordination between the States from which workers migrate and those in which they are employed is equally necessary.
The respective Labour Departments must be able to identify workers, verify employment conditions and respond promptly to grievances.
The effective implementation of these statutory benefits calls for an efficient and upright administrative machinery, capable of functioning independently of political pressures.
Equally essential is trade union leadership guided by ethical values, placing workers’ welfare above political considerations.
Together, they can help bridge the persistent gap between statutory promises and the benefits actually reaching migrant workers.
The real measure of labour welfare legislation is not merely the number of benefits written into it, but the extent to which those benefits reach the intended workers.
For inter-State migrant workers, this remains the most important test of the new legal framework.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
