Odisha Govt’s 10-Hour Workday and Women’s Night Shift Move Sparks Unconstitutional Debate 

The Government’s Push for Industrial Flexibility

The Odisha government has justified its move by describing it as a move to be able to compete with other states in terms of industrial investment. According to the officials, strict labour laws have in the past been a disincentive to companies seeking to establish manufacturing units. With greater flexibility in hours and shift schedules, the state is hoping that it will offer itself as a more appealing destination of capital.

The 10 hour workday is rationale because it offers the option of compressed workweeks during which an employee can work more hours in four or five days and have a longer weekend. Industries claim that this model may become more efficient and productive particularly in sectors that are meant to work round the clock. This, they argue, is to the advantage of the employer and the employee who might feel more comfortable with the reduced workweek.

The same can be said about the decision to remove the ban on women working during night that is framed as a step towards gender equality and empowerment. The government claims that the old ban was a paternalistic objection that curtailed the access of women to some jobs and industries, like textiles, electronics and IT services. By allowing them to work at night, they say it gives them equal opportunities and a greater involvement in the workforce.

In general, the position of the administration is that it is not the actions to exploit labour but adjust to the dynamics of work. They think that with adequate protection and controls, such flexible policies could help create a more vibrant and productive industrial ecosystem in Odisha and eventually benefit the whole economy of the state, as well as provide a more inclusive job market.

The Contentious 10-Hour Workday

The most denounced proposal by labour unions has been the proposal to increase hours worked by employees per day to 10 hours in place of the usual 8 hours. Although the maximum work hours per week will be maintained at 48, critics believe that the increased daily work shifts will cause physical and mental fatigue to the workers. This may lead to an increased number of accidents at the workplace, decreased productivity over the long term and extreme health issues.

Opposition to the move cites that the move contravenes the spirit of the Right to Life as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has over and over again construed this right to embrace the right to dignified life that involves proper rest, leisure and proper work-life balance including healthy work-life balance. The requirement to coerce workers to work 10 hour shifts is regarded as a violation of this basic right to dignified life beyond survival.

Moreover, it has a long-standing fear that such a flexibility will be abused by employers. The worry by the trade unions is that in a highly unemployed country workers will lack bargaining power to reject longer hours. They are worried that the 10-hour day will be a permanent feature instead of an exception and that the world standard of the 8-hour working day will be destroyed with no major remuneration.

This action is also perceived to be conflicting with the Directive Principles of State Policy which, though not legally enforceable, are supposed to guide the state. Article 43, e.g., demands that the state should provide all workers with a living wage and conditions of work that guarantee decent standard of life. Those who are against lengthening of the working day argue that it is retrogressive on this constitutional objective.

Women’s Night Shifts: A Question of Safety and Equality

Whether women should work night shifts or not is a complicated problem that has both parties making valid arguments. Its advocates rejoice in the triumph of gender equality, the breaking down of a law that categorized women as requiring protection and, by so doing, deprived them of the economic opportunities. They say that in the modern economy, women must be given equal rights of choice of working hours as their male counterparts.

Nevertheless, safety and security have been an urgent issue brought up by activists and women groups. They claim that it is not only important to lift the ban but also have a set of strict and enforceable safeguards. These have among them are compulsory safe transportation to workplace, and back, provided by the company, bright factory floors, and premises, and more security guards.

One of the biggest areas of disagreement is the proper enforcement of sexual harassment statutes. According to critics, a large number of workplaces do not have well formed and operational Internal Complaints Committee (ICCs) in place as required by the Prevention of sexual harassment (PoSH) Act. Laboring the night shifts without providing these committees can be leaving the women more exposed to harassment and violence.

This is the place where the constitutional debate is important. Article 42 advises the state to put into place arrangements to achieve just and humane work conditions. In the event that the government allows women to work at night without first providing a totally safe and secure environment, it may be perceived to be violating its constitutional responsibility. It is not whether women can work at night or not but whether the state has reached out enough to make sure that they are safe to do so.