The Karnataka government’s consideration of extending the legal workday to 10–12 hours under proposed amendments to the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, has ignited a sharp divide between economic liberalisation goals and labour rights concerns.
The move is framed as part of an effort to align with national labour reforms introduced by the Centre between 2019 and 2020 under the four new Labour Codes, which allow states discretion in setting work hour norms. Several states—including Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh—have already raised daily work hour caps. Karnataka, home to India’s tech capital, appears to be following this trend to remain “business-friendly,” especially for its high-growth IT/ITeS sector.
Under the draft amendment:
-
Daily work hours could rise from 9 to 10 hours, with the option to extend up to 12 hours including overtime.
-
Weekly working hours would remain capped at 48 hours.
-
Operational benefits like simplified certification and record maintenance are expected for businesses.
However, the backlash has been immediate and intense:
-
KITU (Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union) has labelled the plan as "modern-day slavery," warning of dire consequences for mental health, job security, and overall quality of life.
-
They argue it could legalise exploitative two-shift systems, reducing the need for a third workforce shift and potentially leading to mass layoffs.
-
Labour leaders accuse the government of favouring corporate interests over human dignity and worker welfare, especially in a sector already battling high attrition and burnout.
From a business standpoint, proponents argue the reform offers:
-
Operational flexibility, especially for sectors like IT that operate across global time zones.
-
Greater efficiency, with reduced regulatory burden for smaller businesses.
But critics stress that these efficiencies should not come at the cost of employee rights, work-life balance, and mental well-being.
The Labour Department held a consultation with industry and union representatives, but no official decision has followed. The proposal has not yet reached the legislature, but union threats of widespread mobilization suggest that unilateral enforcement could lead to large-scale protests.
Key Takeaways:
-
This debate echoes a larger national tension: balancing investor-friendly reforms with constitutional protections for labour.
-
Worker sentiment is strongly against longer hours without safeguards or fair compensation.
-
The outcome in Karnataka could set a precedent for other states navigating similar decisions.
Unless the government expands its consultation to include diverse worker voices—not just business stakeholders—it risks a significant industrial standoff that could damage its reputation as a progressive tech hub.
