Search Publications

Gratuity sits at an unusual crossroads in Indian labour law. It is part reward, part deferred wage and part social security, and for decades it has been governed by a compact statute, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Since 21 November 2025 the entitlement has a new statutory home in the Code on Social Security, 2020. This article explains the nature and purpose of gratuity, then works through eligibility, continuous service, calculation, forfeiture and enforcement under the 1972 Act. It then examines what the Code changed, chiefly the one-year rule for fixed-term employees and the broader definition of wages, and what it deliberately left untouched. The article argues that the older case law remains a living resource, while the new provisions leave several drafting questions that tribunals and courts will have to settle.

This paper charts the evolution of the duty to give reasons for administrative decisions in India. Neither the Constitution nor any general statute explicitly imposes this obligation but it emerged through judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court beginning in Harinagar Sugar Mills (1961) and concluding in Anuradha Bhasin (2020). It is demonstrated that the duty evolved through three phases. Initially, it was justified as a supervisory tool for appellate and revisional orders then incorporated within article 14 and finally declared as a general principle of administration. In assessing the strictness of this obligation in four contexts dismissal from service, preventive detention, licence revocation and economic or fiscal decisions four variables consistently resurfaced the nature of the function, the value of the interest affected, the availability of review and possible competing public interests. These variables were found to operate in a manner akin to proportionality though implicitly and with varying degrees of consistency which may explain the divergence between the various cases, including the shift from Madhya Pradesh Industries to Bhagat Raja. It was further found that fiscal decisions are not subject to differential scrutiny per se, since adjudicative fiscal decisions involve a strict scrutiny standard whereas fiscal policy or commercial decisions are guided by leniency principles. Finally, a four-part framework for evaluating the duty’s strictness is proposed.

This paper examines whether the “unwelcome conduct” standard in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 can sufficiently protect women against covert harassment or harassment through technological mediums. This paper demonstrates that while the language of the Act is broad enough to cover both, the law does not provide any criteria for determining unwelcomeness, nor does it explicitly include virtual workplaces. The protection, therefore, hinges on the subjective interpretation of each of the Internal Committees and the courts, which results in inconsistency. Through doctrinal analysis, comparison with other nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and brief hypothetical examples, the paper argues that the solution does not lie in enacting a new law but in rules, guidelines and training, and a balancing of an impact-based standard with the procedure for the respondent, as directed by the Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa.

International trade law is commonly framed through principles such as non-discrimination, market access, transparency and predictable regulation. Yet trade is not experienced in a gender-neutral manner. Women participate in international commerce as workers in export industries, farmers and producers, small-business owners, informal and cross-border traders, service providers, consumers and public decision-makers. Their ability to benefit from trade is shaped by unequal access to finance, land, technology, skills, transport, care infrastructure and formal business networks. Trade liberalisation can create employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, but it can also intensify insecure work, sectoral segregation, unequal pay and barriers to market entry. This article examines the relationship between gender justice and international trade law through a doctrinal and policy-based analysis of the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, international human rights instruments, international labour standards and gender provisions in regional trade agreements. It argues that the existing international framework recognises equality in several important instruments but does not yet provide a comprehensive, consistently enforceable system for assessing and remedying the gendered effects of trade rules. The article distinguishes formal equality from substantive equality and proposes a practical model for gender-responsive trade governance based on ex ante impact assessment, sex-disaggregated data, participation, enforceable labour protections, support for women-led enterprises and transparent monitoring. It concludes that gender justice should not be treated as a peripheral social objective; it should form part of the assessment of whether trade policy produces inclusive and sustainable development.

Gig and platform workers have hitherto remained outside the protective ambit of Indian labour law because platforms classify such workers as independent contractors. Yet the Code on Social Security, 2020 for the first time centrally defines gig workers, platform workers and aggregators and came into force on 21 November 2025, followed by the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026, in May 2026. This paper explores whether the Code constitutes enforceable social security and investigates the constitutional dimensions of such protection, the unresolved classification problem, the Code's definitions, its aggregator funded Social Security Fund, and registration provisions. The paper compares the central code with Rajasthan and Karnataka statutes and with developments in the United Kingdom, the European Union and California. It argues that although the Code constitutes a paradigm shift, such protection remains contingent upon registration, aggregator contributions yet to be tested, and a classification framework which leaves an employment determination issue open. It concludes with reform recommendations.

Postmodern feminism critically examines the relationship between gender, identity, power and society. It challenges traditional feminist approaches that assume women share a single, universal identity and experience discrimination in the same manner. Instead, it recognizes that women's experiences differ according to social, cultural, economic and political circumstances. Factors such as class, caste, culture, sexuality and social structures play an important role in shaping individual identities. This article analyses the theoretical foundations of postmodern feminism and its influence on identity formation. It examines how identities are shaped by social interactions, cultural expectations, language and institutional practices. Particular attention is given to the contributions of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault. Butler's theory of gender performativity explains how gender identity is shaped through repeated social practices and norms, while Foucault's ideas on power and knowledge highlight the influence of institutions and social structures on individual identities The study further explores the relevance of postmodern feminism to feminist jurisprudence, constitutional equality and human rights. It examines how legal systems may reinforce gender stereotypes and exclude individuals whose identities differ from traditional social expectations. The principles of equality, dignity, liberty and non-discrimination are essential for ensuring legal recognition and protection of diverse identities. The article also critically evaluates the challenges of identity instability, differences within feminist movements and difficulties in collective action. Although recognizing diverse identities promotes inclusiveness, it may create challenges in developing common strategies against gender discrimination. The study adopts a doctrinal and critical analytical approach to examine feminist theories, legal principles and human rights perspectives. The article argues that postmodern feminism provides valuable insights into the relationship between identity, power and law. It concludes that recognizing diverse identities, ensuring effective legal protection and promoting equality, dignity and justice are essential for developing an inclusive and equitable society.

Gig and platform work is growing faster than the social security systems that were made for ordinary employment. Because of this, millions of Gig Workers do not have pensions, health cover, injury compensation or maternity benefits. This paper asks how law can give Gig Workers social security. It does this by studying statutes, judgments, official reports and recent scholarship up to 24 October 2026. The paper finds three regulatory models. One model is to reclassify Gig Workers as employees, as the United Kingdom and the European Union do. Another model gives mandated protection, as Singapore and California do. The third model uses levy‑funded schemes, as India does. India’s Code on Social Security, 2020, with the laws of Rajasthan, Karnataka and Telangana, gives Gig Workers statutory recognition. However, the central aggregator levy had not started by September 2026. State laws differ on the fee base, rate and definitions. The paper concludes that the best way is a status‑neutral floor of protection. This floor would be paid for by platforms, the state, and Gig Workers. This approach matches the ILO’s new Convention No. 193.

Gig and platform work is growing faster than the social security systems that were made for ordinary employment. Because of this, millions of Gig Workers do not have pensions, health cover, injury compensation or maternity benefits. This paper asks how law can give Gig Workers social security. It does this by studying statutes, judgments, official reports and recent scholarship up to 24 October 2026. The paper finds three regulatory models. One model is to reclassify Gig Workers as employees, as the United Kingdom and the European Union do. Another model gives mandated protection, as Singapore and California do. The third model uses levy‑funded schemes, as India does. India’s Code on Social Security, 2020, with the laws of Rajasthan, Karnataka and Telangana, gives Gig Workers statutory recognition. However, the central aggregator levy had not started by September 2026. State laws differ on the fee base, rate and definitions. The paper concludes that the best way is a status‑neutral floor of protection. This floor would be paid for by platforms, the state, and Gig Workers. This approach matches the ILO’s new Convention No. 193.

Sexual harassment at the workplace violates a woman's rights to equality, dignity, privacy and livelihood. Following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, India enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act"), supported by the 2013 Rules and, for criminal liability, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. More than a decade on, the Act's promise is still undercut by non-constitution of Internal Complaints Committees, weak Local Committees, fear of retaliation, a short limitation period, underreporting, poor reach into the informal sector and the absence of reliable data. This article examines the text, institutional machinery and judicial interpretation of the Act, identifies the gap between law and practice, draws on comparative models from the United States, the United Kingdom and international labour standards, and proposes legislative, institutional and attitudinal reforms. It argues that the most immediate gains lie in credible enforcement and independent monitoring, supplemented by targeted amendment.

In recent years, the growth of app-based work has created a huge and floating workforce that is engaged in core economic activities. As large numbers of workers are entering into this new domain of work, the workers remain outside the purview of the traditional employer-employee relationship. Estimated NITI Aayog estimate for gig economy workforce in India in 2020-21 was 7.7 million and it is expected to rise to 23.5 million by 2029-30.1 While recognizing the existence of gig economy workers for the first time in the history of independent India through Code on Social Security, 2020 (effective from 21 November 2025), Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 have given operational effect to the concept of social security through the said Code in May 2026.2 This paper, therefore, examines whether this formal recognition of gig workers translates into real social security benefit. The paper will, using a doctrinal and comparative approach, analyze the provisions of the Code, namely the definitions in section 2(10), section 114 and its scheme-enabling character, the capping of contributions by aggregators in section 114(5), the registration- and eligibility-based approach to entitlements in section 114(1)-(3), as well as the institutional framework of section 6. As the Code grants formal inclusion but no real protection to gig workers, three deficits are identified: Firstly, the benefits to be conferred on gig workers are to be laid out in the schemes of benefits that the Central Government “may” frame under section 114(10). Secondly, the Code on Social Security deliberately refrains from deciding the employment status of gig workers. Consequently, the statutory definitions of employment will continue to be of no use to distinguish between employees and non-employees. Thirdly, the entitlements of gig workers to the benefits conferred upon them depend, according to section 114(1)-(3), on their registration and on their having worked for 90/120 days on the platform in question. For a mobile, digitally managed workforce, proving these requirements will be a hard nut to crack. The paper will, for the purpose of comparison, also look into the approach of Uber BV v Aslam in the UK, the California ABC test, the Spanish Rider Law, the new EU Directive 2024/2831 on platform work, as well as the new ILO Convention No 193 (2026) on Women and Men in the New World of Work. Furthermore, the paper will analyze the two already existing statutes on platform workers, namely the legislation of the State of Rajasthan as well as that of the State of Karnataka. Finally, some recommendations will be offered, namely the conferment of statutory minimum entitlements, a rebuttable presumption of employment, the possibility of portable benefits as well as algorithmic transparency.