Working Time Regulation and Occupational Health

Abstract

Working hours are a central concern of labor law because the way work is arranged and the amount of time spent working can directly influence employee health, safety, welfare, and productivity. This paper critically considers whether working-time regulation should be judged only by the total weekly hours or whether equal attention should be paid to how those hours are spread across working days, overtime, rest periods, and opportunities for recovery. Particular attention is given to five-day and six-day work patterns where the overall weekly hours remain within the prescribed legal limit.

The study follows a doctrinal and comparative legal research approach. It examines the Indian legal framework governing occupational safety, working hours, and overtime and compares it with the approaches followed in Japan and Australia. Important judicial decisions on working hours and overtime are also considered, including Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and the Japanese Dentsu case. The research also proposes an empirical framework for Gujarat to study the links between work schedules, overtime, stress, fatigue, recovery, and productivity.

The study takes the view that a numerical weekly limit is necessary, but that limit alone may not fully indicate whether a working arrangement is occupationally safe. Two employees can therefore have the same weekly total while facing very different daily workloads and opportunities to recover. The paper accordingly supports a broader approach to working-time regulation that takes account of daily and weekly hours, overtime, rest intervals, work intensity, occupational-health risks, and recovery. It concludes that labor protection should bring together clear statutory limits, effective enforcement, monitoring of overtime, genuine rest, and evidence-based occupational-health assessment.

1. Introduction

Working time is a basic element of every employment relationship. Employment necessarily involves dividing a person’s time between work and activities outside work. For this reason, the amount of time an employee can be required to work cannot be viewed only as a matter of private contractual choice. It is also a matter of public labor policy, since excessive work can influence physical health, mental well-being, workplace safety, family life, and the ability to recover after work.

The history of labor law shows that working-hour regulation developed, in part, as a response to exploitative conditions and excessively long hours. Working time has consequently been recognized in international labor standards as an important part of decent work. The International Labour Organization’s Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), established the well-known eight-hour daily and forty-eight-hour weekly principle for covered industrial employment, subject to specified exceptions. India ratified Convention No. 1 in 1921.

Modern workplaces make the legal issue more complex. Employers increasingly rely on flexible arrangements, compressed schedules, overtime, shift work, digital communication, and changing workloads. Consequently, the issue is no longer limited to whether an employee has reached a particular weekly number of hours. How those hours are distributed can also affect fatigue and recovery.

India’s legal framework provides an important basis for examining this issue. Section 25 of the Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code), states that a worker should not be required or allowed to work for more than eight hours in a day, subject to the statutory framework and notified conditions. The Code is now in force, with the India Code database recording 21 November 2025 as its enforcement date.

The statutory daily limit is especially relevant here because the research examines the relationship between daily and weekly working time. A weekly figure alone can conceal significant differences in daily exposure. For example, if forty-eight hours are distributed over six working days, the average is eight hours per day. If forty-eight hours are distributed over five working days, the average is 9.6 hours per day. The weekly total is identical, but the daily working pattern is not.

This difference raises a significant legal and occupational-health issue: does meeting a weekly limit necessarily mean that the work arrangement is safe and healthy?

The question becomes more important when overtime is considered. Overtime generally refers to work carried out beyond the ordinary working period. Labor law may provide enhanced payment for overtime because employees are giving additional labor beyond their normal working schedule. However, payment for overtime and protection of occupational health are not the same thing. An employee may receive extra wages and nevertheless face fatigue, stress, or insufficient recovery.

International health evidence supports this concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that 745,000 deaths globally in 2016 were attributable to long working hours, including 398,000 deaths from stroke and 347,000 from ischemic heart disease. Their analysis specifically identified working at least fifty-five hours per week as being associated with increased risks of these conditions when compared with standard working hours.

This evidence does not establish that every person who works long hours will develop a health condition. Instead, it shows that long working time can represent an occupational-health risk at the population level. Labor law should therefore consider not only correct wage payment but also whether work schedules create avoidable health and safety risks.

The ILO has similarly examined working hours and work schedules through the broader concept of work-life balance. Its 2022 global report explains that both the number of working hours and the organization of working-time arrangements influence workers’ work-life balance. The report also identifies longer working hours than preferred as having negative effects on reported work-life balance.

Indian labor law has historically regulated these matters through legislation such as the Factories Act, 1948. The OSH Code represents the contemporary consolidation of occupational safety, health, and working-condition regulation. The Code should therefore be analysed not merely as a technical labor statute but as part of India’s broader constitutional and social commitment to humane working conditions.

The constitutional context is also relevant. Article 42 of the Constitution directs the State to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. Articles 38, 39, and 43 further reflect the constitutional concern with social justice, adequate livelihood, and conditions of work consistent with human dignity. These constitutional principles provide an important background for interpreting labor legislation as protective legislation.

Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and Working-Time Protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (2020) is particularly important for the present research because it directly concerned working hours, rest periods, and overtime in Gujarat. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gujarat issued notifications allowing factories to increase working time to twelve hours per day and seventy-two hours per week while modifying rest and overtime requirements. The Supreme Court invalidated those notifications, holding that the statutory power to relax working-time protections could not be used in circumstances that did not meet the statutory meaning of a public emergency. 1

The case is highly relevant because it demonstrates that working-time limits are not treated by the Supreme Court as ordinary administrative matters. The judgment examined the protective purpose of the Factories Act, the economic and social value of overtime, the unequal bargaining power between employers and workers, and constitutional principles concerning labor protection.

Three Related Propositions

The present research therefore develops from three related propositions:

• First, working-time limits are an important part of occupational safety.
• Second, overtime payment cannot be treated as a complete substitute for health protection.
• Third, the distribution of working hours deserves greater attention alongside weekly totals.

Research Problem

The central research problem is whether India’s working-time framework provides adequate protection when employees’ working hours are concentrated into fewer working days. The question is particularly important where employers organise forty-eight hours over five days instead of six days.

Scope

The study focuses primarily on Indian labor law, particularly the OSH Code, 2020, and the Code on Wages, 2019. It also considers relevant constitutional principles and judicial decisions.

For comparative purposes, Japan and Australia are examined. Japan is particularly relevant because its Labor Standards Act establishes an eight-hour daily and forty-hour weekly standard and regulates overtime through Article 36 agreements. Australia is relevant because its National Employment Standards generally establish thirty-eight hours per week for full-time employees while requiring consideration of whether additional hours are reasonable, including from a health and safety perspective.

2. Objective

The main objective of this study is to critically assess whether the regulation of working hours under contemporary labor law adequately protects employee occupational health and safety.

To Examine India’s Working-Time Framework

The first objective is to examine the statutory regulation of daily working hours, weekly working hours, rest periods, weekly holidays and overtime under India’s contemporary labour-law framework. Particular attention is given to Section 25 of the OSH Code, which establishes an eight-hour daily standard and regulates the organisation of working time through intervals and spread-over requirements.

To Examine The Relationship Between Working Time And Occupational Health

The second objective is to consider how excessive or poorly organised working hours can affect fatigue, concentration, stress, sleep, recovery and occupational safety. The objective is not to claim that every extended work schedule necessarily produces illness. Rather, it is to determine whether working-time patterns can constitute a legally relevant occupational-health risk.

To Compare Five-Day And Six-Day Working Patterns

The third objective is to consider whether working forty-eight hours over five days creates a different pattern of exposure from working forty-eight hours over six days. The analysis considers daily working duration, weekly rest, recovery opportunities and overtime.

To Analyse Overtime Protection

The fourth objective is to assess whether enhanced overtime wages adequately protect employees or whether overtime should additionally be controlled through health and safety mechanisms. The Code on Wages, 2019 provides for overtime payment at not less than twice the normal rate in the circumstances covered by the statutory framework. The legal significance of overtime compensation must therefore be examined separately from the health effects of additional working time.

To Analyse Judicial Decisions

The fifth objective is to consider judicial decisions that have addressed working hours, overtime and employer responsibility. Particular attention is given to:

• Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (2020);
• Workmen of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (1973); and
• the Japanese Supreme Court’s Dentsu decision, Case No. 1998(O)217, decided on 24 March 2000.

To Undertake Comparative Analysis

The sixth objective is to undertake a comparison of India with Japan and Australia in relation to daily limits, weekly limits, overtime arrangements and health-related considerations.

To Develop A Gujarat Research Framework

The final objective is to develop a methodology through which future empirical research in Gujarat can examine the relationship between working schedules, overtime, stress, recovery, absenteeism, errors and productivity.

3. Literature Review

3.1 International Literature on Working Hours

The ILO treats working hours as an important element of labour protection. Convention No. 1 introduced the eight-hour working day and 48-hour working week for covered industrial workers. India ratified this Convention in 1921

Recent ILO literature considers not only the number of hours worked but also work schedules and work-life balance. It shows that working longer than desired can negatively affect work-life balance and highlights the benefits of reasonable and flexible working hours

This literature is important for the present study because working hours affect not only the total time spent at work but also employees’ sleep, family time, rest and recovery.

Earlier ILO research also highlighted the risks of long working hours and insufficient rest. It also discussed compressed workweeks and flexible working arrangements as important issues in working-time regulation.

3.2 Health Literature on Long Working Hours

Research indicates that extended working hours can have adverse effects on employee health. A joint WHO and ILO study found that people working 55 hours or more per week had a higher risk of stroke and ischaemic heart disease than those working 35–40 hours per week.2

The study estimated that long working hours were linked to around 745,000 deaths from stroke and heart disease worldwide in 2016. It also found that about 479 million people worked at least 55 hours per week.

These findings show that working-time regulations are also important for protecting occupational health. Limiting excessive working hours can help reduce health risks.

However, these findings show a general health risk and do not mean that every person working long hours will develop a particular disease. Therefore, the evidence mainly supports preventive measures and better regulation of working hours.

3.3 Psychosocial Risks and Mental Health

Modern occupational-health research increasingly recognises psychosocial risks. Long working hours, excessive workloads, unsocial hours and inflexible schedules can contribute to stress and difficulties in maintaining work-life balance. This development creates a challenge for traditional labour law because physical workplace risks are often easier to measure than psychosocial risks. A machine guard can be inspected and a working-hour register can be checked, but stress, fatigue and inadequate recovery can be more difficult to identify. The legal significance is nevertheless substantial. If a working pattern repeatedly creates fatigue and reduces recovery, labour regulation should consider whether the employer’s scheduling practices are consistent with the broader purpose of occupational safety.

3.4 Indian Legal Literature and the Protective Purpose of Labour Law

Indian labour law has traditionally recognised that workers do not always bargain with employers from equal economic positions. Working-time legislation therefore performs a protective function by establishing minimum conditions that cannot simply be waived through individual agreement. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha is particularly important in this respect. The Court examined the Factories Act as legislation designed to protect workers against harsh and oppressive working conditions and emphasised the unequal bargaining power between workers and employers. This reasoning supports the view that working-hour legislation should not be treated solely as an economic regulation. It also protects dignity, health and the ability of workers to avoid excessive working conditions.

3.5 Case Study

1: Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (2020)

One of the most directly relevant Indian cases is Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 708 of 2020, decided by the Supreme Court on 1 October 2020.

This decision is significant for understanding working-hour protection in India. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Gujarat Government temporarily allowed factories to increase working hours to 12 hours a day and 72 hours a week. The Supreme Court examined these changes and held that such relaxation could not be used to remove important labour protections. The Court also considered the importance of rest periods and overtime wages for workers. The decision illustrates the close relationship between working-hour limits and employee health, safety and welfare.

2: Dentsu Case, Supreme Court of Japan (2000)

The Dentsu case is an important Japanese case related to excessive working hours. An employee worked very long hours and later suffered serious mental health problems and died by suicide. The Japanese Supreme Court held that the employer had a duty to protect the employee’s health and should have taken steps when it became aware of the excessive workload.

3: Japan and the Development of the Karoshi Framework

Research on karoshi, or death related to overwork, shows the serious health risks of excessive working hours in Japan. The study explains that long working hours and insufficient rest can contribute to serious health problems. It also highlights the need for preventive measures and better control of working hours.

3.6 Indian Case Law and Overtime as a Legal Right

Indian case law has repeatedly recognised the importance of statutory overtime payment.

Similarly, the historical line of cases concerning the Factories Act demonstrates that overtime wages are statutory protections rather than merely discretionary benefits. This is consistent with the protective character of labour legislation.

However, overtime payment should be distinguished from occupational-health prevention. A legal system can simultaneously recognise an employee’s right to overtime wages and impose limits on the amount of work an employee may perform.

3.7 Comparative Literature: Japan

Japanese labour law provides an eight-hour daily and forty-hour weekly standard under Article 32 of the Labour Standards Act. Where employers require work beyond statutory hours, Article 36 generally requires an agreement with the relevant employee representative or union and filing with the Labour Standards Inspection Office. Japanese Government material identifies the ordinary overtime framework and states that the general limit under Article 36 is forty-five hours per month and 360 hours per year, subject to the statutory exceptional framework.

The Japanese model is therefore significant because it combines:

The legal response to karoshi further demonstrates the connection between working time and occupational health.

3.8 Comparative Literature: Australia

Australia’s National Employment Standards establish a maximum of thirty-eight hours per week for full-time employees unless additional hours are reasonable. The Fair Work Ombudsman states that employees may refuse additional hours when those hours are unreasonable. The assessment of reasonableness considers factors including risk to employee health and safety, personal circumstances, family responsibilities, workplace needs, compensation, notice, usual industry patterns and the employee’s role.

This approach is particularly relevant to the present research because it introduces a qualitative element into working-time regulation. The question is not only “How many hours?” but also “Are the additional hours reasonable in the circumstances?”

India could study this approach without necessarily copying Australian law. It demonstrates the possibility of combining numerical limits with health and contextual factors.

3.9 Research Gap

The literature establishes that excessive working hours can have consequences for health, safety and work-life balance. It also establishes that working-time regulation can involve daily limits, weekly limits, overtime compensation and health-related obligations.

However, an important research gap remains concerning the distribution of hours within a legally permissible weekly total.

For example, forty-eight hours over six days and forty-eight hours over five days are numerically equivalent at the weekly level but differ in daily exposure and weekly recovery structure.

There is also limited India-specific empirical literature examining whether employees in different sectors experience measurable differences in fatigue, stress, recovery and productivity depending upon whether they work five or six days.

The proposed Gujarat study is designed to address this gap.

4. Research Methodology

This study uses a doctrinal and comparative research method. It mainly examines Indian labour laws relating to working hours, overtime and occupational health and safety. Relevant laws, judicial decisions, ILO standards and government reports have been studied. The study also compares India’s working-hour framework with Japan and Australia to understand different approaches to working-time regulation. Secondary sources such as research articles, official reports, legal databases and government websites have been used. The research is mainly qualitative and focuses on understanding whether existing working-hour rules provide adequate protection to employees from health and safety risks.

5. Result

5.1 Result of Doctrinal Analysis

The doctrinal analysis indicates that Indian working-time law contains important protective standards concerning daily working hours, weekly working hours and overtime.

Section 25 of the OSH Code establishes an eight-hour daily standard and provides that working periods should be organised with prescribed intervals and spread-over requirements.

This demonstrates that Indian law recognises the daily dimension of working time. Therefore, the legal meaning of a weekly total cannot be separated completely from daily limits.

5.2 Result Concerning the Five-Day Model

A forty-eight-hour five-day schedule produces an average of 9.6 hours per working day.

The figure itself does not prove that the arrangement is unlawful in every possible circumstance because the OSH Code must be read together with applicable rules, notifications and statutory exceptions. Nevertheless, the calculation demonstrates why a weekly total alone cannot explain the actual working-time pattern. The five-day model may provide two weekly rest days, which can create additional recovery opportunities. At the same time, the individual working days may be longer. The occupational-health effect therefore requires empirical testing rather than assumption.

5.3 Result Concerning the Six-Day Model

A forty-eight-hour six-day schedule produces an average of eight hours per day. The daily duration is therefore shorter than the hypothetical five-day forty-eight-hour model. However, the worker normally receives only one weekly rest day. The six-day model therefore raises a different recovery question. Daily workload may be lower while the frequency of working days is greater. The legal and occupational-health assessment should consequently consider both daily and weekly recovery.

5.4 Result Concerning Overtime

The legal analysis demonstrates that overtime has an economic and protective dimension. The Code on Wages provides enhanced overtime payment, while Indian case law has historically recognised statutory rights to overtime wages.

However, overtime payment does not eliminate the possibility of fatigue or health risks.

The result is that overtime should be viewed through two separate legal questions:

5.5 Result from Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha

The Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha decision provides particularly strong judicial support for treating working-time protections as substantive labour protections. The Supreme Court invalidated the Gujarat notifications that permitted twelve-hour days and seventy-two-hour weeks during the pandemic. The judgment therefore demonstrates that extraordinary economic circumstances cannot automatically justify removal of statutory working-time protections. The case also provides a strong foundation for Gujarat-specific research because the challenged working-time arrangements were introduced within Gujarat.

5.6 Result from the Dentsu Case

The Japanese Supreme Court’s Dentsu decision demonstrates that excessive working hours can create an independent employer responsibility relating to employee health.

The Court recognised a duty of care where supervisors knew of excessive working hours and deteriorating health but failed to take adequate measures.3

This supports a broader concept of employer responsibility in which working-time management is part of occupational-health management.

5.7 Result from International Health Evidence

The WHO/ILO evidence establishes a significant population-level relationship between very long working hours and cardiovascular disease outcomes. The result is important because it strengthens the legal argument for preventive regulation.

5.8 Result of Comparative Analysis

The comparison identifies three different approaches.

These differences demonstrate that working-time regulation can combine quantitative limits with qualitative assessment.

6. Discussion

6.1 Is the Forty-Eight-Hour Limit Sufficient?

The central issue cannot be resolved by simply describing forty-eight hours as sufficient or insufficient in every circumstance. A weekly ceiling is essential because it provides a clear and enforceable maximum. However, a weekly ceiling alone may fail to capture daily concentration, overtime patterns and recovery. For example, two workers can both work forty-eight hours, but one may work six days while the other works five days. Their working-time experiences differ.

Therefore, the better legal approach is to view the weekly ceiling as one component of a wider working-time protection system.

6.2 Five-Day Working: Potential Advantages and Risks

A five-day model may offer employees two weekly rest days. This can be useful for family activities, social responsibilities and longer recovery periods. However, where the weekly total remains forty-eight hours, daily working hours may become longer. Longer individual working days may be particularly significant in physically demanding occupations, safety-sensitive employment, driving, manufacturing, healthcare or other work requiring continuous concentration. The legal question should therefore consider the nature of the work rather than applying a completely abstract concept of working time.

6.3 Six-Day Working: Potential Advantages and Risks

A six-day model can distribute forty-eight hours more evenly across the week. In the hypothetical example, eight hours per day is required. However, the employee receives only one regular weekly rest day. For workers with long commuting times, physically demanding jobs or family responsibilities, the limited number of non-working days may affect recovery and work-life balance.

Accordingly, neither schedule can automatically be classified as safe or unsafe.

6.4 Overtime Payment Is Not a Substitute for Health Protection

One of the key findings is the distinction between compensation and prevention. If an employee receives double wages for overtime, the employee has received economic compensation. But the payment does not reduce the number of hours already worked. The worker may still experience fatigue. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha is important here because it treated overtime and working-time restrictions as part of the protective structure of labour legislation rather than as purely economic terms.

6.5 Lessons from Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha

The Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha judgment has broader significance beyond the COVID-19 situation. The case demonstrates that labour protections may become particularly important when workers’ bargaining power is weakened. During an economic crisis, employees may be reluctant to refuse additional work because refusal may threaten employment or income. Therefore, relying entirely on individual consent may not adequately protect workers. Working-time regulation exists partly because individual bargaining does not always occur between equal parties.

6.6 Lessons from the Dentsu Case

The Dentsu case demonstrates the importance of employer knowledge. Where management knows that an employee is working excessive hours and that the employee’s health is deteriorating, continuing to impose the same workload may raise a separate duty-of-care issue. This principle has relevance beyond Japan. It suggests that employers should monitor working-time patterns rather than merely recording them.

For example, if an employee repeatedly works very long overtime hours, the employer should not assume that payment alone resolves the issue.

6.7 Reasonable Additional Hours

In Australia, full-time employees generally work 38 hours per week. They may be required to work additional hours only when those hours are considered reasonable. Factors such as the employee’s health and safety, personal circumstances, and the nature of the work are considered.

6.8 Working Time and Productivity

A common assumption in workplace management is that longer working hours necessarily create higher productivity. The relationship is more complicated. If an employee works additional hours while maintaining concentration and quality, output may increase. However, fatigue can reduce concentration and increase errors. In safety-sensitive workplaces, this may create direct accident risks. In office-based employment, fatigue may reduce decision quality, creativity and efficiency. Therefore, employers should distinguish between hours worked and effective productivity. A longer workday does not necessarily mean proportionately higher output.

6.9 Work-Life Balance

Working hours influence employees’ personal lives as well as their working lives. Long working hours can reduce the time available for sleep, family, household work, recreation and personal activities. This issue is especially important for employees working six days a week. The ILO also recognises the link between working hours and work-life balance (ILO, 2022).

6.10 Rest as an Occupational-Health Mechanism

Rest is important for employee recovery and reducing fatigue. Daily breaks and weekly rest help employees recover from work. Therefore, rest periods should be real and meaningful, rather than only formal requirements. Employees should be able to take breaks without continuing work through calls or emails.

6.11 Digital Work and Working Hours

Technology has made it difficult to separate work from personal time. Employees may receive work messages or calls after working hours. Regular work-related communication outside office hours can increase actual working time. Therefore, future working-time rules should also consider digital work outside normal hours.

6.12 Enforcement

Working-time legislation can be effective only when it is properly enforced. Important measures include:

• accurate working-hour records
• overtime records
• attendance systems
• labour inspections
• employee complaint mechanisms

Technology should help employers follow the law rather than create unnecessary pressure on employees.

6.13 Proposed Gujarat Empirical Contribution

A Gujarat-based study can provide useful evidence about working hours in different sectors. The research may include:

• manufacturing
• offices
• retail
• services
• logistics

Working-hour effects may differ between occupations, so the results should be studied separately for different types of workers.

6.14 Policy Recommendations

The study indicates that working-time regulation should address both working hours and employee health. Important measures include:

• maintaining daily and weekly limits
• monitoring regular overtime
• improving working-hour records
• protecting genuine rest periods
• considering digital work outside normal hours

Overtime payment should protect workers financially, but it should not replace the need to prevent excessive working hours.

Favourable Aspects of Judicial Interference

• Protection of workers’ rights.
• Protection of overtime rights.
• Accountability of government and employers
• Control over excessive working hours
• Protection of health and safety

Unfavourable Aspects of Judicial Interference

• Limited role of judiciary.
• Practical difficulties for employers.
• Different workplace requirements.
• Dependence on enforcement.
• Balance between protection and flexibility

Conclusion

Working hours occupy a central position in labour law because they determine not only the amount of labour an employee provides but also the amount of time available for rest, recovery, family and personal life. The regulation of working time is therefore closely connected with occupational safety, health and human dignity.

The research began with a specific question: whether a forty-eight-hour weekly framework is sufficient when employees’ working hours are compressed into fewer working days. The analysis indicates that the weekly figure alone does not give a complete picture of working-time exposure.

A forty-eight-hour week can be distributed across six days at approximately eight hours per day or across five days at approximately 9.6 hours per day. These patterns have different daily exposure and different recovery structures. Neither model can automatically be declared healthier in all circumstances. The appropriate assessment depends on daily working duration, overtime, work intensity, rest periods, weekly recovery and occupational circumstances.

Indian law contains important protective provisions. Section 25 of the OSH Code establishes an eight-hour daily standard and regulates the organisation of working time through statutory requirements concerning intervals and spread-over.

The Code on Wages also recognises overtime through enhanced payment. Indian judicial decisions have historically reinforced overtime rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State of Gujarat is particularly significant. The Court rejected an attempt to substantially increase working hours during the COVID-19 economic crisis by using an emergency exemption. The decision demonstrates that working-time protections have a substantive protective purpose and cannot be treated as merely economic rules.

The Japanese Dentsu case adds another important dimension. It demonstrates that employers may have a duty to protect employees from health damage resulting from excessive working hours and workload.

The international comparison also offers useful insights. Japan generally operates with an eight-hour daily and forty-hour weekly statutory standard, supported by Article 36 overtime agreements and controls. Australia generally provides a thirty-eight-hour weekly standard for full-time employees and requires health and safety to be considered when determining whether additional hours are reasonable.

These approaches demonstrate that working-time regulation can combine quantitative limits with qualitative considerations. International health evidence further strengthens the importance of the issue. The WHO and ILO estimate that 745,000 deaths in 2016 were attributable to long working hours, demonstrating that excessive working time can constitute a serious population-level occupational-health concern. The research therefore supports a broader legal understanding of working-time protection.

The proposed Gujarat empirical study can contribute important evidence by examining whether employees working five-day and six-day schedules experience different levels of fatigue, stress, recovery and productivity. However, such differences should be established through actual research data rather than assumed in advance.

The main conclusion is therefore not that five-day employment is automatically better than six-day employment, nor that six-day employment is automatically safer. The stronger legal conclusion is that working-time protection should not be measured exclusively through the weekly total.

A working-time arrangement should also be examined according to:

• how the hours are distributed
• how frequently overtime occurs
• whether employees receive genuine rest
• whether employers monitor fatigue
• whether the arrangement creates occupational-health risks

The future development of Indian labour law can therefore benefit from combining the certainty of statutory working-hour limits with stronger monitoring of overtime, meaningful rest periods, fatigue management and occupational-health assessment.

The broader purpose of labour law should be to create conditions in which economic productivity and employee welfare can exist together. Employees should receive fair compensation for their labour, while employers should retain reasonable operational flexibility. At the same time, flexibility should not undermine the basic protective purpose of labour legislation.

The legal regulation of working hours should consequently be understood not simply as a mechanism for counting hours, but as a broader system for protecting health, safety, dignity, recovery and sustainable employment.

References

• https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB A12100 A0 A ANO A AP12100_ILO_CODE AC001
• https://www.who.int/news/item/17-05-2021-long-working-hours-increasing-deaths-from-heart-disease-and-stroke-who-ilo
• https://www.ilo.org/publications/working-time-and-work-life-balance-around-world
• https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/roudouseisaku/chushoukigyou/joken_kankyou_rule.html
• https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-and-resources/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/maximum-weekly-hours
• https://www.ilo.org/publications/working-time-around-world
• https://www.labour.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/07/36fcfa5d8e6b9145e282bf7b950d6c47.pdf
• https://www.labour.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/07

• The Illusion of the 48-Hour Week: Statutory Exemptions under Shops & Establishments Acts and Uncompensated Overtime in India’s IT Sector
• Labour Law Compliances for Small Offices & Start-ups under the Shops & Establishment Act
• Impact of cyber laws on social media
• Working Conditions Of Women In The Factories And Challenges
• Impact of the New Labour Codes on Textile Workers in Surat