New Labour Codes will reduce Indian workforce to “army of slaves”: Colin Gonsalves

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday delivered a sharp critique of India’s new Labour Codes, warning that the reforms dismantle hard-won labour protections and risk turning the country’s workforce into an “army of slaves.”

Gonsalves was speaking at a conference organised by the Society of Indian Law Firms and the Confederation of Indian Industry in New Delhi. Other speakers at the inaugural session included Supreme Court Justice Manmohan as Chief Guest and Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice Dr Manoj Kumar as Guest of Honour.

“Glorious India, wonderful India, resurgent India, GDP 7 percent on the basis of an army of slaves,” Gonsalves said, arguing that labour had been reduced to a disposable input in the pursuit of economic growth.

Tracing the erosion of labour rights over the last two decades, Gonsalves said that the Labour Codes were not an isolated reform but the culmination of a long process that began with judicial dilution of permanency protections for contract and temporary workers. He referred to Supreme Court rulings that reversed earlier principles recognising long-term contractual engagement as a basis for permanent employment.

“Labour has been stripped of all legal protection. What you have in its place is a pretence that they are now going to be protected in a different way,” Gonsalves said, describing the Labour Codes as “the last nail in the coffin” of labour rights.

He argued that the Codes institutionalise insecurity by normalising fixed-term employment, weakening inspection regimes and moving away from adjudication by independent labour courts. According to him, industry has long opposed judicial oversight in labour disputes and prefers dispute resolution mechanisms such as conciliation, mediation and arbitration, which do not carry the authority of court-ordered reinstatement or back wages.

“What industry does not want is an independent judge and an independent court telling a powerful company to reinstate a worker,” he said, alleging that the new framework systematically sidelines such remedies.

Gonsalves accused the government of selectively invoking global standards while ignoring worker-friendly international precedents.

“Who does the government learn from?” he asked, before answering,

“They learn from Amazon.”

Referring to working conditions in Amazon warehouses, Gonsalves alleged that workers are subjected to constant camera surveillance, monitored even during bathroom breaks, and penalised for taking longer than permitted. He described this as the model of labour management that India appears to be emulating under the guise of reform.

He also criticised the dilution of inspection regimes, questioning why factory inspections were being curtailed in the name of economic growth. Referring to platform-based and warehouse work, Gonsalves spoke of constant surveillance, excessive working hours and “termination by remote control,” where workers could be deactivated without notice or explanation.

Drawing comparisons with international practice, Gonsalves pointed to the United Kingdom, where courts have held that gig economy drivers are workers entitled to labour law protections. He contrasted this with India’s approach, which he said normalised precarious work while projecting an illusion of social security.

Responding to the criticism at the same event, Dr Kumar defended the Labour Codes as a necessary consolidation of a fragmented and outdated labour law regime. He said India’s earlier framework consisted of numerous laws enacted across different eras, leading to overlapping definitions, procedural duplication and compliance uncertainty.

Kumar said that the four Labour Codes aim to move from “multiplicity to harmonisation” and from “regulation by fear to regulation by confidence,” while seeking to balance economic flexibility with worker protection. He also emphasised that extensive stakeholder consultations preceded the enactment of the Codes and that the success of the reforms would ultimately depend on careful implementation by states and capacity-building across stakeholders.

SILF President Lalit Bhasin commented that sharply divergent views expressed during the inaugural session were intended to frame a broader debate on the Labour Codes, which would continue across subsequent technical sessions and feed into a consolidated policy paper on the reforms.