Comparative Study of Unfair Labour Practices Under Indian and International Labour Standards
Abstract
Unfair labour practices can disturb the balance between employers and workers and can weaken freedom of association, negotiation between workers and employers and fair treatment at work. India has developed a large set of labour legislation dealing with industrial disputes, trade unions, worker protection and employer conduct. At the same time, international labour standards developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) provide general principles about freedom to form and join organisations, protection against discrimination against trade union members and negotiation between workers and employers. This research article compares the treatment of unfair labour practices under Indian law and important international labour standards. It traces the development from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and state-level legislation such as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 to the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which came into force on 21 November 2025. The study also studys ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the supervisory role of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association. The article argues that the main challenge is not merely the existence of legal rules but their proper implementation, access to legal remedies and real protection of worker representation. It concludes with recommendations for stronger enforcement, easy to access dispute-resolution methods, protection against punishment or negative action in response and closer practical alignment with international labour principles.
1. Introduction
Employment is not only an economic relationship but also a relationship involving rights, duties and unequal bargaining power. In many workplaces, the employer normally controls recruitment, wages, discipline, promotion and termination, while workers depend on employment for their livelihood. This unequal position creates the possibility of unfair conduct, especially when workers attempt to organise collectively or raise workplace grievances. Unfair labour practices therefore occupy an important place in labour law because they can interfere with the ability of workers to exercise collective rights and can also undermine lawful managerial authority when workers or unions engage in unlawful conduct.
The Indian legal system has developed over several decades. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 addressed industrial disputes and included a legal schedule identifying unfair labour practices. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 provided the principal system for registration and legal protection of trade unions. At the state level, the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 created a especially detailed mechanism for identifying and preventing unfair labour practices. More recently, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidated major central laws relating to industrial relations. The Central Government brought the Code into force on 21 November 2025.
Internationally, the ILO has developed standards that protect freedom to form and join organisations and collective bargaining. Convention No. 87 protects freedom to form and join organisations and the right to organise, while Convention No. 98 addresses the right to organise and negotiation between workers and employers. India has not ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98; the ILO’s current NORMLEX record lists both among the basic and important conventions not ratified by India. India has, however, ratified six of the ILO’s ten basic and important conventions, including Conventions Nos. 29, 100, 105, 111, 138 and 182.
2. Research Problem
The central research problem is the difference that may arise between legal recognition of worker rights and their practical enforcement. A legal system may prohibit discrimination against trade union members, victimisation or unwanted involvement with negotiation between workers and employers, yet workers may still experience difficulty in obtaining timely remedies. The study therefore asks whether the Indian system provides sufficient protection against unfair labour practices when compared with important international labour standards, and where important gaps or implementation challenges remain.
3. Objectives of the Study
- To explain the meaning and scope of unfair labour practices under Indian labour law.
- To study the development of Indian law from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
- To study relevant ILO standards about freedom to form and join organisations, trade union rights and collective bargaining.
- To compare Indian legal provisions with international labour principles.
- To identify practical enforcement challenges and suggest reforms for stronger worker protection.
4. Research Methodology
This research uses a legal and comparative method. Primary legal materials include Indian statutes, judicial decisions and ILO instruments. Secondary materials include peer-reviewed academic literature and ILO research publications. The comparison focuses on four broad dimensions: freedom of association, protection against discrimination against trade union members and victimisation, negotiation between workers and employers, and enforcement and remedies. The study is primarily mainly descriptive and does not attempt to produce a statistical measurement of the incidence of unfair labour practices.
5. Concept of Unfair Labour Practices
Unfair labour practices may broadly be understood as conduct by employers, workers or trade unions that interferes with legally protected industrial-relations rights or violates accepted standards of fair labour relations. The concept is wider than ordinary workplace misconduct. Its particular importance comes up when conduct affects collective organisation, union activity, bargaining or the right of workers to raise grievances without punishment or negative action in response.
Typical employer-side practices may include interfering with the formation or administration of a trade union, discriminating against workers because of union membership, threatening workers for participating in lawful union activities, or creating conditions intended to weaken independent worker representation. Worker- or union-side unfair practices can include coercion of non-members, illegal strikes or other prohibited unwanted involvement.
The exact list and legal effects depend on the applicable legislation. The Maharashtra system is especially useful for understanding the Indian concept because the 1971 Act expressly identifies categories of unfair labour practices and provides procedures for complaints. Judicial decisions under the Act have also considered questions of victimisation, union recognition, representation and employer conduct. These cases show that unfair labour practices are not simply abstract legal categories but are closely connected to industrial power and the availability of effective remedies.
6. Evolution of Indian Labour Law
6.1 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 became a central pillar of Indian industrial relations law after independence. It provided methods for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and regulated matters such as strikes, lockouts, retrenchment and other employment-related disputes. Schedule V identified unfair labour practices. The Act therefore connected industrial peace with protection against certain forms of improper employer and worker conduct.
6.2 Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is important because it combines trade union recognition with a detailed unfair-labour-practice regime. It provides categories of unlawful conduct and establishes methods through which complaints can be brought before labour bodies. Supreme Court decisions including Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate and Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. illustrate the importance of legal authority, representative union rights and remedies under this system.
6.3 Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidates central legislation about trade unions, conditions of employment and industrial disputes. Its provisions must now be considered in the context of its start on 21 November 2025. The transition from earlier legislation to the Code makes it important to study not only the wording of the new provisions but also how the institutional and procedural system operates in practice.
The Government describes the labour codes as a consolidation and rationalisation of 29 central labour laws. ncitenturn0search26n Bhuta (2022) studys the Industrial Relations Code critically, especially in relation to trade unionism and strikes and other collective action. Roy and Dubey (2022) similarly compare the Code with the earlier Industrial Disputes Act and highlight the significance of changes in thresholds and procedures. These studies show why bringing different laws together should be studied together with its practical effects for workers and unions.
7. Judicial Approach to Unfair Labour Practices
Indian courts have played an important role in interpreting labour legislation and balancing employer interests with worker protection. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, the Supreme Court considered the operation of the Maharashtra unfair-labour-practice system in relation to disciplinary action and legal authority. In Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., the Court dealt with questions about trade unions that represent workers and complaints under the Maharashtra legislation. These decisions show the importance of procedural access and legal standing in labour disputes.
Other decisions have studyd victimisation, disciplinary action and the relationship between employer management rights and legal worker protections. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate shows the importance of whether the punishment was fair in relation to the misconduct and due process in disciplinary matters, while Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha involved questions about contract workers, unionisation and industrial relations. Judicial interpretation has therefore been central to defining the practical boundaries of employer authority and worker rights.
8. International Labour Standards
8.1 ILO Convention No. 87
Convention No. 87, adopted in 1948, establishes basic and important principles about freedom to form and join organisations and protection of the right to organise. It recognises the importance of workers and employers being able to establish and join organisations without undue unwanted involvement. From the view of unfair labour practices, the Convention provides an international benchmark against employer unwanted involvement with independent worker organisation.
8.2 ILO Convention No. 98
Convention No. 98, adopted in 1949, focuses on the right to organise and negotiation between workers and employers. It includes protection against discrimination against trade union members and seeks to promote voluntary negotiation between workers and employers. These principles directly overlap with several forms of conduct that national legal systems classify as unfair labour practices.
8.3 ILO Declaration and Supervisory Mechanisms
The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work provides an important system for understanding basic and important labour rights. The ILO supervisory system also includes special procedures, including the Committee on Freedom of Association, which can study complaints about freedom of association even where the country concerned has not ratified the relevant conventions. This makes the international system wider than the simple question of treaty ratification.
India’s non-ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 is an important point of comparison, but it should not be interpreted as meaning that international labour principles are irrelevant to India. India remains an ILO member and has ratified other basic and important conventions. The more precise question is the extent to which domestic law and practice correspond with the principles expressed in the ILO’s freedom-of-association and collective-bargaining standards.
9. Comparative Analysis
9.1 Freedom of Association
Indian labour law recognises trade unions and collective organisation through legislation and constitutional principles. However, the international standard under ILO Convention No. 87 provides a wider formulation of freedom to form and join organisations. The comparison therefore concerns not simply whether unions can legally exist, but whether workers can organise independently and participate in union activity without intimidation, discrimination or punishment or negative action in response.
9.2 Anti-Union Discrimination and Victimisation
Protection against discrimination based on trade union activity is a core concern in both systems. Indian legislation and case law address victimisation and unwanted involvement through specific legal methods. International standards similarly emphasise protection against discrimination against trade union members. A practical difference can arise from enforcement: even where a prohibited act is legally recognised, the worker must have a realistic means of proving the conduct and obtaining a timely remedy.
9.3 Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining provides a mechanism through which workers can negotiate employment conditions collectively. ILO Convention No. 98 and Convention No. 154 provide international reference points for voluntary negotiation between workers and employers. Indian law recognises negotiation between workers and employers through trade union and labour and industrial relations bodies, but questions of union recognition, ability to represent workers and bargaining power can affect how effectively the right operates in practice.
9.4 Enforcement and Remedies
One of the most important areas for comparison is enforcement. A legal prohibition is real and useful only when workers can access bodies that investigate complaints and provide effective remedies. Delays, procedural difficulty, fear of punishment or negative action in response and limited bargaining power can reduce the practical value of legal rights. The ILO’s work on focused on workers industrial relations in India’s garment sector shows the importance of easy to access grievance and dispute-resolution systems. Mezzadri and Sehgal (2023) study how workplace grievances interact with labour and industrial relations bodies and focused on workers approaches.
10. Literature Review
The literature on Indian labour regulation contains several competing views. Mishraa and Dwivedi (2024) trace the historical development of Indian labour laws and show how the legal system has evolved alongside economic and political change. Bhattacharjea (2021) critically reviews the literature on labour-market flexibility and cautions against simplistic conclusions regarding the economic effects of labour regulation. Roychowdhury (2019) studys job-security laws, workers’ bargaining power and employment outcomes, while Ahsan and Pagés (2009) investigate whether different forms of labour regulation have different effects on manufacturing outcomes.
Research specifically examining the Industrial Relations Code provides another important view. Bhuta (2022) discusses the effects of the Code for industrial relations and trade unionism, while Roy and Dubey (2022) compare the new Code with the earlier industrial-disputes system. Ratnam (1999) highlights the practical importance of negotiation between workers and employers and union effectiveness. Together, these works suggest that legal rights cannot be assessd separately from the institutional capacity of unions, employers and dispute-resolution bodies.
A important gap remains in connecting the legal study of unfair labour practices with the wider international standards on freedom to form and join organisations and negotiation between workers and employers. Many discussions study Indian legislation or the ILO system separately. This article attempts to connect the two by examining both the legal rules and the practical enforcement questions that arise when they are compared.
11. Major Challenges in India
- Implementation gap: The existence of legal provisions does not automatically guarantee effective protection at workplace level.
- Delayed remedies: Labour disputes can take important time, which may reduce the practical value of a remedy for a worker who remains economically dependent on employment.
- Fear of punishment or negative action in response: Workers may hesitate to complain where union activity or grievance-raising could affect their employment relationship.
- Union fragmentation and ability to represent workers: Multiple unions and competition for recognition can make negotiation between workers and employers more difficult in some workplaces.
- Informal and non-standard work: Workers outside traditional formal employment relationships may find it more difficult to access conventional labour and industrial relations bodies.
- Changing nature of work: Platform work, subcontracting and complex supply chains create new questions about who is legally responsible for labour practices.
12. Discussion
The comparative analysis shows that India and the international labour system share several core objectives: protection of worker organisation, prevention of discrimination against trade union members, promotion of negotiation between workers and employers and provision of methods for resolving disputes. The difference is often found in the structure and scope of the legal obligations and in the institutional methods used to enforce them.
India’s system has the advantage of detailed legal rules and an established judicial tradition in labour law. At the same time, international standards provide a useful benchmark for evaluating whether these protections are sufficiently independent, easy to access and effective. The comparison should therefore not be reduced to whether India has ratified particular conventions. It should study the actual and practical protection available to workers.
Bhattacharjea’s (2021) review is useful in this context because it cautions against treating labour regulation as a single variable with a simple economic effect. Similarly, the ILO’s focused on workers research shows that the functioning of grievance systems and labour and industrial relations bodies matters for workers experiences. These findings support a wider approach in which legal rules, enforcement bodies, workplace practices and worker bargaining power are study together.
13. Suggestions and Reforms
- Strengthen timely enforcement of unfair-labour-practice provisions and reduce procedural delays.
- Improve workers’ access to affordable legal assistance and labour dispute-resolution bodies.
- Strengthen safeguards against punishment or negative action in response for lawful union activity and workplace complaints.
- Promote transparent and effective methods for determining representative bargaining agents.
- Increase awareness among workers and managers about prohibited unfair labour practices and lawful industrial-relations processes.
- Improve labour inspection and digital grievance systems while protecting confidentiality and due process.
- Develop clearer protections for workers in contract-based, platform and other non-standard employment relationships.
- Continue examining the consistency of Indian industrial-relations practice with relevant ILO principles, including freedom to form and join organisations and negotiation between workers and employers.
14. Conclusion
Unfair labour practices are basic and importantly connected to the balance of power within the employment relationship. Indian labour law has developed a substantial set of protections through the Industrial Disputes Act, state-specific legislation and, more recently, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Code has been in force since 21 November 2025, making the present period especially important for assessing how the new industrial relations system operates in practice.
International labour standards, especially ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, provide important benchmarks about freedom to form and join organisations, protection against discrimination against trade union members and negotiation between workers and employers. India has not ratified these two conventions, but the principles remain relevant to comparative analysis of Indian labour law and practice.
The central conclusion of this study is that the effectiveness of protection against unfair labour practices depends on more than the existence of legislation. Strong remedies, easy to access bodies, timely decision-making by labour courts or authorities, protection against punishment or negative action in response and real and useful negotiation between workers and employers are necessary if legal rights are to become effective workplace rights. India therefore has an important opportunity to strengthen the practical enforcement of its industrial relations system while continuing to assess its consistency with international labour principles.
15. Similarities Between Indian and International Standards
There are several important similarities between Indian labour law and international labour standards. Both recognise the importance of worker organisation and collective representation. Both are concerned with discrimination connected with legitimate union activity. Both recognise collective bargaining as an important way of managing employment relations. The main differences often concern the exact legal structure and the level of international obligation.
ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 provide international standards that can be used as a reference point. Indian law has its own detailed rules, procedures and institutions. India has not ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. However, this does not mean that international labour principles have no relevance in India. India is an ILO member and has ratified other fundamental labour conventions.
The ILO also has supervisory and special procedures through which freedom-of-association issues can be considered. Therefore, the comparison should not simply ask whether India has ratified a convention. It should also ask whether Indian law and workplace practice provide meaningful protection for workers to organise, bargain and raise complaints.
16. Areas Where Practice Can Be Improved
- The first area that needs attention is enforcement. A law can be strong on paper but still be less effective if workers cannot get a timely remedy. Labour institutions should be accessible and procedures should be understandable to ordinary workers.
- The second area is awareness. Workers may not know which conduct is unfair or where they should complain. Employers and HR managers may also be uncertain about the exact legal position. Regular labour law training can help both sides understand their rights and duties.
- The third area is prevention. It is better to prevent a dispute than to resolve it after several years. Organisations can use grievance systems, employee meetings, clear disciplinary procedures and proper communication. These internal systems should not remove workers’ legal rights, but they can help solve smaller problems before they become serious disputes.
- The fourth area is protection from retaliation. A complaint system cannot work well if employees believe that making a complaint will automatically damage their employment. Confidentiality, fair investigation and protection against retaliation can increase employee confidence.
- The fifth area is adapting labour protection to new forms of work. Contract workers, platform workers and other workers outside traditional employment need suitable ways to raise complaints and protect their interests.
17. Overall Findings
The first major finding of this study is that India has developed a wide legal system for industrial relations and worker protection. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 represent different stages in this development.
The second finding is that international labour standards provide a useful basis for comparison. ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 place importance on freedom of association and collective bargaining. These principles are closely connected with several practices that Indian law treats as unfair.
The third finding is that enforcement is as important as legislation. If a worker cannot obtain a timely remedy, a legal right may have limited value in practice. Grievance systems, labour authorities, trade unions and courts all have a role in making rights meaningful.
The fourth finding is that HR managers are important in preventing workplace conflict. HR decisions about discipline, complaints, communication and employee relations can either reduce conflict or increase it. HR education should therefore include basic labour law and industrial relations.
The fifth finding is that changes in employment patterns create new questions. Contract work, outsourcing and platform work may make traditional systems less effective. Future labour policy will need to respond to these changes while maintaining basic principles of fairness.
18. Limitations of the Study
This research is mainly based on legislation, judicial decisions, ILO material and academic literature. It does not include a large survey of workers, employers or trade union representatives. Therefore, it cannot give an exact statistical picture of how often unfair labour practices occur in Indian workplaces.
Another limitation is that labour law is changing. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is now part of the current central industrial relations system, and its practical implementation will continue to develop through rules, administrative decisions and court cases. Future studies can examine the effect of the Code after more years of implementation.
19. Scope for Future Research
Future research can include interviews with workers, HR managers and trade union representatives. Such research could provide a clearer picture of how unfair labour practices are experienced at workplace level. A statewise comparison would also be useful. Maharashtra has a specific law dealing with recognition of trade unions and unfair labour practices, while other states may operate under different legal arrangements. Comparing these systems may show how different legal structures affect workers.
Another important area is platform and contract work. The traditional ideas of employer, employee and workplace are becoming more complicated. Future research can examine whether current remedies are sufficient for these workers.
20. Final Conclusion
The study of unfair labour practices shows that labour rights are not only about written laws. They are also about how those laws work in real workplaces. India has developed important protections through different stages of labour legislation, with the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 being the latest major central development.
International labour standards provide another way to understand these protections. ILO standards on freedom of association and collective bargaining show why workers should be able to organise and negotiate without improper pressure. India has not ratified ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, but these standards remain useful for comparison.
The main issue is therefore not simply whether India has laws against unfair labour practices. The more important question is whether workers can use these laws effectively. Timely remedies, fair procedures, strong grievance systems, protection against retaliation and meaningful collective bargaining can make legal rights more useful.
For HR professionals, the lesson is practical. Fair treatment should be part of everyday management and not something considered only after a legal dispute begins. Employers should have clear policies, workers should know their rights, and both sides should have a proper way to discuss and resolve disagreements.
Overall, India has a legal base from which stronger protection can continue to develop. Greater attention to enforcement, worker awareness, collective bargaining and international labour principles can help make industrial relations more balanced and fair.
21. References
- Ahnsan, A., & Pagés, C. (2009). Are all labor regulations equal? Evidence from Indian manufacturing.
- Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 62–75.
- Bhattacharjea, A. (2006). Labour market regulation and industrial performance in India: A critical review of the empirical evidence. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 49(2), 211–232.
- Bhattacharjea, A. (2021). Labour market flexibility in Indian manufacturing: A critical survey of the literature.
- International Labour Review, 160(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12194
- Bhuta, A. (2022). Imbalancing act: India’s Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 65(3), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00389-3
- Government of India. (1947). Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Government of India. (1971). Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
- Government of India. (2020). Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Act No. 35 of 2020).
- International Labour Organization. (1948). Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
- International Labour Organization. (1949). Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
- International Labour Organization. (1971). Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).
- International Labour Organization. (1981). Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).
- International Labour Organization. (1998, amended 2022). ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
- International Labour Organization. (1994). Freedom of association and negotiation between workers and employers: General Survey. International Labour Conference, 81st Session.
- International Labour Organization (2023). Mezzadri, A., & Sehgal, R. The social life of industrial disputes: Exploring workers-centred industrial relations in India’s garment labour regime.
- Mishraa, A., & Dwivedi, A. (2024). Labour laws in India: History, evolution and critical analysis. Labor History, 65(5), 678–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2280051
- Ratnam, C. S. V. (1999). Collective bargaining: Workers are less committed to any solidarity based on ideology and will readily shift their allegiance if unions do not deliver results: India. Labour Education, 84–91.
- Roy, G. K., & Dubey, A. (2022). A note on Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 65(2), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00368-8
- Roychowdhury, A. (2019). Application of job security laws, workers’ bargaining power and employment outcomes in India. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304619831245
- Supreme Court of India. (1995). Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, (1995) 5 SCC 27.
- Supreme Court of India. (1995). Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate, (1995) 6 SCC 326.
- Supreme Court of India. (1995). Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 78.
- Supreme Court of India. (2005). Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489.
