Contract Labour and Principal Employer Liability Under the OSH Code, 2020

Abstract

Most organizations now depend on outside contractors for security, housekeeping, cleaning and other facility work. It makes commercial sense, because a business can concentrate on what it actually does. But it also leaves an awkward question hanging. When the person guarding the gate or cleaning the corridor is on someone else’s payroll, how much is the organization that benefits from their work still answerable for?

This article looks at that question under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code). It explains what a principal employer owes contracted facility and security workers in terms of welfare, safety and wages, and what it must do about the contractor’s compliance. It then shows how the law tells a genuine contracting arrangement from a sham one, using two Supreme Court decisions: Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997) and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001). The argument is a balanced one. The OSH Code does not turn every contract worker into an employee of the principal employer, but it does not let the principal employer walk away either.

Key Words: Contract labour; principal employer; contractor; OSH Code 2020; occupational safety; security staff; facility workers; housekeeping workers; welfare; wages; sham contract; worker protection.

1. Introduction: The Changing Nature of Contract Labour

Walk into almost any office, factory, hospital or campus in India and you will meet people who work there every day but are not paid by the place itself. The guard at the gate, the person mopping the corridor, the technician who keeps the lifts running: very often they belong to a contractor. For the organization this is convenient. It gets the service without recruiting, training and supervising a large support workforce, and much of the administration is left to someone else.

That convenience creates a three-cornered relationship between the principal employer, the contractor and the worker. The question that keeps surfacing in disputes is easy to state and harder to answer: does bringing in a contractor end the organization’s responsibility for the people doing the work?

Under the OSH Code, it does not. The principal employer keeps certain statutory duties towards contract workers, especially on welfare, health and safety, and, as a fallback, on wages. A contractor in the middle is not a reason to stop caring about how those workers are treated on the principal employer’s own premises.

This article focuses particularly on contracted facility and security staff and examines when the principal employer may have responsibilities towards them. It also looks at the difference between a genuine contract arrangement and a sham or disguised arrangement, where the contractor structure may be used to avoid responsibilities towards workers.

2. Review of Literature

Indian labour-law has written about contract labour at length, mostly from the angle of worker protection and the question of who answers for what. A few strands are particularly useful here.

Dargad (2024) writes directly about security guards. He examines what principal employers and private security agencies owe them and stresses that fair employment conditions and legal protection matter for a workforce that is often poorly placed to bargain. Because his subject is guards placed through private agencies, his paper sits very close to this article. It is built mainly on the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, however, so it was written before the OSH Code came into force.

Article page: Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research – Dargad (2024)

Ray (2016) takes a wider view. She follows the development of contract labour in India, sets out the legal framework around it and reviews important judicial decisions. Her paper is frank about the weaknesses of the system and about how courts have handled questions of contract labour and its prohibition.

Article page: International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies – Ray (2016)

Research Gap

These studies give a solid foundation for understanding contract labour and the protection of security workers. What is still missing is a focused look at the present liability of principal employers towards contracted security, housekeeping and facility workers under the OSH Code, 2020. This article tries to fill that gap by examining welfare facilities, wage liability, contractor compliance and the limits of the contractor arrangement.

3. Research Methodology

This study follows the doctrinal method of legal research. It reads the OSH Code, 2020 and the rules made under it alongside court decisions, government documents, commentaries and academic papers, and then analyses what they say about the duties of principal employers towards contract workers. The focus is on security, housekeeping and facility staff, because these are the groups most often found working inside someone else’s premises. Two Supreme Court decisions get closer attention because they shape how courts separate a genuine contract from a sham one.

4. The OSH Code, 2020 Position

The OSH Code folds the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA) and twelve other labour laws into a single statute (Press Information Bureau, n.d.). The Code came into force on 21 November 2025, and the CLRA stood repealed from that date. Contract labour is dealt with in Part I of Chapter XI (Sections 45 to 58). The general design will look familiar to anyone who knew the CLRA, but there are some real changes, summarized below. The Central Government also notified the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 on 8 May 2026 to operate the Code (Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2026b).

Read as a whole, the Code’s contribution is mostly one of clarification and consolidation. It restates the wage and welfare “safety net” in clearer language (Sections 53 and 55). Its one sharp addition is Section 54. By making the principal employer directly answerable when the contractor is unlicensed, it removes any temptation to look the other way on licensing.

5. Understanding the Principal Employer–Contractor–Worker Relationship

A principal employer is, broadly, the person or authority responsible for the establishment where contract labour is engaged. Instead of appointing workers directly, the principal employer may bring them in through a contractor.

The contractor is the one who supplies or employs the contract labour for the work of the establishment.

A simple example helps. A manufacturing company hires a security agency. The agency recruits and pays the guards, and the guards work at the company’s premises. In that arrangement:

• the manufacturing company is the principal employer;
• the security agency is the contractor; and
• the security guards are the contract workers.

The same pattern applies to housekeeping and cleaning staff. What matters is that the contract between company and agency does not wipe out the company’s legal responsibility towards the guards. In India, security agencies must also hold a license of their own under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, which is one more thing a careful principal employer should check.

6. Contract Labour under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020

The OSH Code brings together several earlier laws on occupational safety, health and working conditions. For contract labour, the relevant provisions are mainly in Sections 45 to 58. They cover:

• licensing of contractors;
• employment of contract labour;
• welfare facilities;
• payment of wages;
• the responsibility of the principal employer; and
• restrictions on contract labour in core activities.

The result is a system of shared responsibility. The principal employer does not replace the contractor, but it cannot simply ignore the conditions of the contract workers in its establishment either.

7. Statutory Responsibilities of Principal Employers towards Contract Workers

The OSH Code, 2020 places certain responsibilities on the principal employer to protect contract workers at the workplace. These responsibilities are especially important for workers engaged in security, housekeeping, cleaning and other facility services.

Providing Welfare Facilities: (Section 53, OSH Code, 2020)

Under Section 53 of the OSH Code, 2020, the principal employer is responsible for providing the welfare facilities required under the Code to contract labour. These may include drinking water, toilets, first-aid, rest facilities and canteen facilities, where applicable. The purpose is to ensure that contract workers receive basic facilities while working at the establishment.

Ensuring a Licensed Contractor: (Section 54, OSH Code, 2020)

Section 54 deals with situations where contract labour is engaged through a contractor who is required to hold a license. The principal employer should ensure that the contractor fulfils the licensing requirements before engaging workers. This helps prevent unlawful employment through an unlicensed contractor.

Protection of Wages: (Section 55, OSH Code, 2020)

Under Section 55, the contractor is primarily responsible for paying wages to contract workers. However, if the contractor fails to pay the wages or pays less than the amount due, the principal employer is required to pay the unpaid or short-paid amount. The principal employer can subsequently recover the amount from the contractor.

Safe Working Conditions

The principal employer should ensure that contract workers are not ignored when workplace safety arrangements are made. Security guards, housekeeping workers and facility staff should have access to necessary safety measures and a reasonably safe working environment. Their contractual status should not be used as a reason to overlook workplace risks.

Monitoring Contractor Compliance

The principal employer should regularly check whether the contractor is following the applicable legal requirements. This can include checking wage records, worker details, attendance, safety arrangements and welfare facilities. Regular monitoring helps identify problems early and makes the contractual arrangement more transparent.

Checking contractor’s status:

A responsible principal employer therefore sets up a process before the contractor starts work. In practice that may include:

• checking the contractor’s registration or license, wherever applicable;
• verifying the contractor’s identity and legal status;
• collecting worker records;
• checking wage structures;
• confirming statutory registrations and contributions where they apply;
• assessing workplace safety arrangements;
• setting up attendance and deployment records;
• creating a way for workers to complain; and
• reviewing compliance at regular intervals.

None of this means the principal employer should take over the contractor’s job as employer. The purpose is to make sure that the duties the law places on the principal employer are actually carried out and that obvious violations do not go unnoticed.

8. Welfare, Safety and Wage Protection of Contract Workers: Liability of the Principal Employer

Security guards, housekeeping workers and other facility staff are usually hired through contractors, but they work at the principal employer’s workplace day after day. Their basic welfare, safety and wages cannot be treated as someone else’s problem. Section 53 of the OSH Code makes the principal employer responsible for providing the welfare facilities the Code requires for contract workers when the contractor fails to do so. Section 55 says the contractor is mainly responsible for paying wages, but if the contractor does not pay, or pays short, the principal employer must pay the unpaid amount to the workers and can later recover it from the contractor.

For security staff, the facilities in question include drinking water, toilets, first aid and rest arrangements. Guards also deal with long shifts, night duty, outdoor posts and emergencies. Housekeeping and facility workers face different risks, such as cleaning chemicals, waste and slippery floors. For that reason, a principal employer should not rely only on the contractor’s paperwork. It should look at the actual conditions in which these people work.

1. A Case from the Kerala High Court: Malabar Cements Ltd. v. Kerala State Security Staff Association

Background:

The Kerala High Court decided a dispute involving security guards working through a contractor at the mines and township of Malabar Cements Ltd. The argument was over the wages payable to these guards and over who was responsible, the contractor or the company. The competent labour authority had fixed wage rates for guards, head guards and security supervisors, and had also directed that they receive proper holidays, leave and other service conditions. The company challenged that order. It said the contractor was responsible for the workers and that the company should not carry the wage liability directly, particularly after the contract had ended. The case therefore raised a practical question: how far does the principal employer’s responsibility go when workers are employed through a contractor?

What the Court decided (Judgement):

The High Court explained that the contractor remains primarily responsible for paying the wages of contract workers. Where the payment falls short of what the law requires, however, the principal employer has a limited responsibility to make up the shortfall, and it can recover that amount from the contractor. The Court was equally clear that the principal employer cannot be given unlimited liability beyond what the law provides.

Put simply: the contractor is mainly responsible for wages, but the principal employer has a part to play in making sure the workers are not left without their lawful pay when the contractor fails. At the same time, the principal employer cannot be made answerable for every liability of the contractor without a proper legal basis.

Why it matters under the OSH Code:

The case is a useful guide to the current position because the Code follows the same idea, primary responsibility on the contractor with a statutory safety net through the principal employer. Section 55 now says expressly that when a contractor fails to pay wages or pays short, the principal employer must pay the unpaid amount and may recover it from the contractor. Section 53 separately makes the principal employer responsible for specified welfare facilities. The main lesson is that hiring through a contractor does not allow the principal employer to step completely away from the welfare, safety and wage protection of the workers. The contractor stays responsible for its contractual duties, and the principal employer stays responsible for the duties the law places on it directly.

9. Piercing the Contractual Shield: Genuine Employment or Sham Arrangement?

A major question in contract labour disputes is whether the contract is real. A genuine contract exists where the contractor actually acts as an independent contractor and takes on the responsibilities that come with the workers. It is a different story when the contractor is only a name on paper and the principal employer is the one actually controlling the workers and their employment.

Imagine a company that formally appoints a security agency but recruits the guards itself, fixes their salaries, controls their leave, imposes discipline and manages their employment directly. Here it is fair to ask whether there is a real contract at all, or only a device to avoid direct employment responsibilities. This is where the idea of “piercing the contractor shield” comes in. When the actual relationship matters, the law looks past the label on the agreement.

“Contractor shield” is used in this article as an analytical phrase, not a statutory term. The law does not treat every contract labour arrangement with suspicion, because contract labour is legally recognized. The concern arises only when the paperwork does not match the real working relationship.

Several factual questions can matter in such an examination:

• who recruits the workers;
• who pays their wages;
• who controls attendance;
• who grants leave;
• who exercises disciplinary authority;
• who decides how the work is done;
• who keeps the employment records;
• who provides employment-related benefits;
• who supervises the workers; and
• whether the contractor has a genuine, independent business presence.

No single factor settles the matter, and the whole arrangement has to be looked at. This is especially true for security and housekeeping staff, because day-to-day operational supervision is easily mistaken for employment control. A company can legitimately tell security personnel about entry procedures, emergency response and security requirements without becoming their employer.

Likewise, a principal employer can point out the areas to be cleaned and the standard it expects without making the housekeeping workers its own employees. The picture changes when the principal employer starts doing the contractor’s essential employment functions. So contracts should be drafted clearly, and actual practice should stay consistent with what the contract says.

10. Judicial Development on Principal Employer Liability

The Supreme Court has dealt with the relationship between contract labour and principal employers in several important decisions. Two of them frame the discussion in this article: Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers.

10.1 Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997)

Citation: Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377.

Background:

The workers had been engaged through contractors for jobs like sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching in the establishment. A government notification had prohibited contract labour in these services, but the contract labour system carried on regardless. The workers went to court to enforce the prohibition and to be absorbed as employees of the principal employer.

The issue:

The main question was whether abolishing contract labour would lead to the absorption of the contract workers as direct employees of the principal employer. Behind it lay a broader purpose: deciding what follows legally when contract labour is abolished under Section 10 of the CLRA, and in particular whether the workers stay as contract labour or become the principal employer’s employees.

Arguments:

The workers argued that once contract labour was prohibited, the link between the contractor and the workers should end and a direct employer–employee relationship should arise with the principal employer. The employer disputed that absorption followed automatically.

Decision:

The Supreme Court held that, in the circumstances before it, abolition of the contract labour system placed a statutory obligation on the principal employer to absorb the affected workers. The Court took the view that the tie between the contractor and the workers had been cut once contract labour was abolished.

Why it matters:

The decision linked the abolition of contract labour with absorption of workers by the principal employer, and became an important marker in the development of Indian contract labour law. It is also directly relevant here, since the dispute itself was about cleaning and watching, which are close to the outsourced services discussed in this article.

10.2 Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001)

Citation: Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC

Background:

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court came back to the legal consequences of abolishing contract labour under Section 10 of the CLRA. The dispute was whether workers engaged through contractors would automatically become employees of the principal employer once contract labour was prohibited. The Bench also had to settle the conflicting judicial approaches that had grown up on this point.

The issue

The central question was this: does abolition of contract labour automatically result in absorption of the contract workers by the principal employer? The Court also considered whether the mere existence of a contract between the principal employer and the contractor proves that there is no direct employer–employee relationship.

Arguments

The workers argued that abolition should lead to a direct relationship with the principal employer, and they relied on the earlier Air India decision. The principal employers replied that abolition does not by itself create a direct employment relationship.

Decision

The Constitution Bench held that abolition of contract labour does not automatically result in absorption of the workers by the principal employer. It found that neither Section 10 nor any other provision of the Act created automatic absorption. On that point it overruled Air India prospectively

The principles that came out of it

• Abolition of contract labour does not automatically create an employer–employee relationship.
• The principal employer is not automatically required to absorb contract workers.
• The earlier Air India position on automatic absorption was overruled prospectively.
• Where the contract is alleged to be sham or nominal, the real nature of the relationship can still be examined.

Why it matters

The decision gives the final judicial position on automatic absorption under the earlier contract labour legislation. It separates two questions that are easy to blur: whether contract labour is legally prohibited, and whether the workers thereby become employees of the principal employer.

Relevance to this article

For security and facility workers, the message is that working continuously at a company’s premises does not, on that fact alone, make them the company’s direct employees. Even so, organisations still have to make sure their contractual arrangements are genuine and that their statutory duties towards contract workers are actually met.

10.3 The Present Legal Position

The two judgments show the development of the law from the absorption-oriented approach in Air India to the no-automatic-absorption approach in SAIL. The SAIL judgment is therefore particularly important for the present article because it establishes that abolition of contract labour by itself does not make contract workers employees of the principal employer.

At the same time, this principle should not be confused with the separate question of whether a contractual arrangement is genuine. Where the contractor is only a nominal intermediary and the actual relationship is different, the nature of that relationship can be examined.

11. Compliance Framework for Principal Employers

Principal employers play a real part in making sure contract workers get the protection the OSH Code,2020. Signing an agreement with the contractor is not the end of the job. The principal employer should keep checking whether the contractor is meeting legal and workplace requirements, and good records, regular monitoring and open communication go a long way towards preventing violations. This matters most for security, housekeeping and other facility workers, who are present in the establishment every day.

Key compliance measures:

• Verify contractor compliance. Check the contractor’s licence, worker records, wage payments and other statutory requirements.
• Monitor workplace conditions. Regularly inspect safety, health, sanitation, drinking water and other required welfare facilities.
• Keep proper records. Maintain records of workers, attendance, wages, inspections, complaints and corrective action.

12. Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Worker Protections

Protecting contract workers properly takes cooperation between the principal employer, the contractor and the workers themselves. The OSH Code provides important safeguards, but the way it is implemented matters just as much. Clear policies cut down confusion about who is responsible for what, and regular monitoring can catch problems before they harden into disputes. A stronger compliance system can support both worker protection and responsible outsourcing.

Key policy recommendations:

• Regular compliance audits. Principal employers should periodically review contractors’ wage, safety and welfare compliance.
• A stronger grievance mechanism. Contract workers need an easy, accessible way to raise concerns about wages, safety or working conditions.
• Worker awareness. Workers should be told about their basic rights; safety requirements and the grievance channels open to them.
• Sharper contract terms. Agreements with contractors should provide for record-sharing, audit rights, and recovery of amounts the principal employer has to pay on the contractor’s behalf.

13. Practical Challenges in Implementing Principal Employer Responsibilities

On paper, the principal employer’s duties are clear enough. In practice they are harder to carry out. Security, housekeeping and facility workers may come through several different contractors, which makes regular supervision and compliance checking more difficult. The main challenges are these.

Monitoring contractor compliance.

It is hard for a principal employer to check regularly that a contractor is following every legal requirement. Wage payments, attendance, worker records and other documents all need continuing attention.

Ensuring timely payment of wages.

The contractor is mainly responsible for wages, but delays and short payments hit workers directly. The principal employer may then have to step in and make sure workers receive what is legally due.

Maintaining safety and welfare.

Contract workers should have proper safety measures and basic welfare facilities. Checking these regularly is difficult, especially when the workers belong to different contractors.

Missing or incomplete records.

Some contractors do not keep full records of workers, attendance, wages or complaints. Poor documentation makes it hard for the principal employer to spot problems and correct them.

Unclear division of responsibility.

The principal employer and the contractor may each assume the other is responsible for a particular issue. Clear contract terms and regular communication help.

Seeing the actual working conditions.

Documents do not tell the whole story. The principal employer should visit the workplace and see whether workers are really getting proper wages, safety measures and welfare facilities.

Handling worker complaints.

Contract workers may hesitate to complain because they fear losing their job or upsetting the contractor. An accessible grievance channel lets them speak up without unnecessary difficulty.

14. Balancing Outsourcing with Worker Protection

The OSH Code should not be read as making the principal employer answerable for every act of every contractor. Equally, the contractor arrangement should not become a way to avoid statutory responsibility. A balanced approach needs three things working together:

Contractor responsibility + Principal employer responsibility + Worker protection

The contractor should properly employ and manage the workers. The principal employer should carry out the responsibilities the law puts on it and keep the workplace in proper condition. And the workers should be able to reach the protections and remedies the law gives them.

Recommendations

Contract workers need proper protection not only through laws but also through their effective implementation at the workplace. Principal employers and contractors should work together to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and basic welfare facilities. The following recommendations can help improve the protection of contract workers:

Regular Compliance Checks:

Principal employers should regularly check the contractor’s wage records, worker details, attendance and other required documents. This can help identify problems before they become serious disputes.

Regular Workplace Inspections:

The principal employer should periodically visit the workplace and check the actual conditions of contract workers. Safety equipment, drinking water, toilets, first-aid and other welfare facilities should be properly maintained.

Proper Wage Verification:

Wage payment should not be treated as the contractor’s issue alone. The principal employer should verify that workers are receiving their wages correctly and on time, particularly because Section 55 places liability on the principal employer when the contractor fails to pay or makes a short payment.

Simple Grievance System:

Contract workers should have an easy way to report problems related to wages, safety or workplace conditions. Their complaints should be properly recorded and addressed without unnecessary delay.

Careful Selection of Contractors:

Principal employers should select contractors based not only on cost but also on their ability to follow labour laws. The contractor’s licence, previous compliance record and ability to provide trained workers should be considered.

Proper Record-Keeping:

Records relating to workers, wages, attendance, safety training, inspections and complaints should be maintained properly. Digital records can make monitoring easier and provide useful evidence when a dispute arises.

Clear Division of Responsibilities:

The agreement between the principal employer and contractor should clearly mention who is responsible for wages, safety, welfare facilities, records and worker complaints. This can reduce confusion and make accountability clearer.

Focus on Actual Protection:

Compliance should not become only a paperwork exercise. The principal employer should focus on whether workers are actually receiving the protection required under the law. Section 53, for example, specifically places responsibility on the principal employer for specified welfare facilities for contract labour.

Conclusion

These days, many organizations hand over security, housekeeping, cleaning and similar support work to contractors. It makes management easier, but it doesn’t let the organization wash its hands of the people doing that work.

The OSH Code, 2020 sets out how responsibility is shared. The contractor is the main party answerable for its workers, especially on wages and other terms of employment. The principal employer still has duties of its own: providing welfare facilities, keeping the workplace safe, and paying the workers’ wages if the contractor fails to. So the relationship isn’t just contractor and worker. The principal employer is part of it too.

The cases discussed earlier, Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, show how the law has shifted over the years. As things stand, contract workers don’t become direct employees just because a contract is abolished. But if the contractor exists only on paper and the principal employer is the one really controlling the work, courts can look past the paperwork and examine the true nature of the arrangement.

For security guards, housekeeping staff and other facility workers, then, what matters is not only what the contract says but what actually happens on the ground. They need fair wages, safe conditions, basic welfare facilities and an easy way to raise complaints. Principal employers should also check on their contractors’ compliance from time to time, rather than assuming the job is done once the contract is signed.

Overall, the OSH Code tries to balance two things: allowing genuine outsourcing while protecting the workers involved. Contractors should be free to do their job independently, but outsourcing shouldn’t become a way to dodge legal obligations. How well the law works will depend on how seriously principal employers and contractors take these duties in day-to-day practice. When compliance is backed by regular monitoring and real concern for workers, the contractor system can work without eroding the basic protections contract workers are entitled to.

References

• Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India. (2020). The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. Government of India.
• AICCTU. (2021, August). Contract labour – the principal sham. Workers’ Resistance.
• Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377 (India).
• Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 (India).
• Assudani, R. (2021, December 16). Re-inventing contract labour under the labour reforms: Taking the example of the Indian information technology sector. The Journal of Indian Law and Society Blog
• Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 (India).
• Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, No. 37 of 1970, Acts of Parliament (India) (repealed by the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020).
• Dargad, B. (2024). Obligation of principal employer and security agencies towards security guards. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 11(12),
• Malabar Cements Ltd. v. Kerala State Security Staff Association [full citation to be added] (Ker.).
• Ministry of Labour and Employment. (2026a). FAQs on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020. Government of India.
• Ministry of Labour and Employment. (2026b). Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026. Government of India.
• Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, No. 37 of 2020, Acts of Parliament (India).
• Press Information Bureau. (n.d.). Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020 [Factsheet]. Government of India.
• Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, No. 29 of 2005, Acts of Parliament (India).
• Ray, P. (2016). Contract labour system in India: Issues and perspectives. International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies, 3(3).
• Sapkal, R. S. (2016). Labor law, enforcement and the rise of temporary contract workers: Empirical evidence from India’s organized manufacturing sector. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1), 157–182.

Written By: Ishika Patel, Department of Human Resource Development, VNSGU, Surat, Gujarat

• Health and Safety in the workplace: Employer Mandates under Indian Labour Law
• From Bandhua Mukti Morcha to the OSH Code 2020: Four Decades of Unresolved Quarry and Mine Labour Exploitation in India
• Construction Disputes in Dubai: UAE Law, Delay, Payment & Arbitration Guide
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• UAE Construction Design Liability: Who Pays When Something Goes Wrong?