Article

Changing Labour Market and Management and Labour Studies

42(1) 59–67
Industrial Relations, Changing © 2017 XLRI Jamshedpur, School of
Business Management
Times: Make in India and & Human Resources
SAGE Publications
Ensuing Labour Reforms sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0258042X17695167
http://mls.sagepub.com

Kuriakose Mamkoottam1

Abstract
This article argues that the ‘Make-in-India’ and the proposed labour reforms are unlikely to succeed
given the unequal structure of the Indian labour market, with the large majority of the Indian labour
force remaining in the unorganized sector and unprotected by the labour laws. It is further argued that
the introduction of some of the proposed labour reforms are likely to create further imbalance in the
bargaining power in favour of management, which may not help to develop a balanced labour market,
and may further increase the social and economic inequality.

Key Words
Labour reforms, labour flexibility, unorganized sector, inequality

Introduction
Much has changed in India in recent times, including the Indian labour market and Indian industrial
relations. For reasons good or bad, the trajectory of Indian industry and industrial relations has been
closely linked to the political developments in the country. During a major period of Independent India,
industrial enterprises were established, owned and managed by the state-controlled public sector, and a
good part of Indian industry was dominated by manufacturing. The balance of payments crisis brought
on by several factors including the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Gulf War and the fiscal indiscipline
made the Indian government liberalize the Indian economy through a series of policy measures starting
from 1991. During the past 24 years, Indian industry, the Indian labour market and the Indian industrial
relations scenario have all witnessed many changes. The information technology (IT) revolution, which

1
Currently Professor Emeritus of Business, Public Policy & Social Entrepreneurship, and Executive Chairperson, AUD Centre for
Incubation, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Ambedkar University, New Delhi.

Corresponding author:
Kuriakose Mamkoottam, Currently Professor Emeritus of Business, Public Policy & Social Entrepreneurship, and Executive
Chairperson, AUD Centre for Incubation, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Ambedkar University, New Delhi, India.
E-mail: kuria@aud.ac.in
60 Management and Labour Studies 42(1)

led to increased global demand for IT-enabled services, coupled with the availability of relatively cheaper
educated manpower in India, made India the backroom for the Western world. The sluggish manufacturing
sector was quickly overtaken by the IT and the services sector.
Perhaps learning from the success stories of East Asian economies including China, India has been
trying to revive the manufacturing sector in recent years. The past several governments have attempted
to usher in various labour reforms to that effect. Meaningful labour reforms have to take cognizance of
the unequal structure of the Indian labour market, with an increasing proportion of the labour force
joining the informal sector. The informal sector remains unprotected and unorganized as it has not
attracted much attention of the trade unions. An important question that may be asked here is: ‘will the
“Make-in-India” campaign and the ensuing labour reforms, while achieving labour market flexibility
and industrial/economic development, also reduce the growing inequality in the labour market and
ameliorate the vulnerability of the large segment of the Indian labour force?’

Changing Times and the Make in India

During the initial two to three decades after Independence, Indian industry concentrated largely on the
manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector was dominated by the state, namely, the public sector
which created textile mills, steel plants, bicycle and railway coach factories, automotive plants,
pharmaceutical firms, chemical factories, aviation manufacturing, consumer electronics, etc. While
the private players were not inclined or encouraged to invest in important sectors of the economy,
the public sector did not pay serious attention to the efficient management of enterprises, leave alone the
technological upgradation and modernization of industrial plants and machinery. As a result, the
manufacturing sector became inefficient and was unable to generate the desired employment. In
the meantime, the private sector took advantage of the newly announced 1991 economic policies of the
liberalized India to serve the globalized economy. With the help of new technologies and IT-enabled
services, along with the availability of a relatively cheap educated labour force, India became the
destination of outsourced work for the global economy and sooner than later the services industry came
to occupy the dominant position in the economy.
Lack of modernization and the delay in introducing technological changes made the Indian
manufacturing processes and products obsolete, making the manufacturing sector extremely non-
competitive. Manufacturing was no more the preferred choice of Indian entrepreneurs and businessmen.
Industrial re-engineering and organizational restructuring, required by the pressures of the globally
competitive environment, resulted in massive downsizing, closure of many manufacturing enterprises
and many job losses. The result was declining job opportunities for the large majority of the labour force
which remained unskilled or at best semi-skilled.
Taking note of the situation, the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had initiated
the National Manufacturing Policy in 2011 which was visualized to create 100 million jobs in the
manufacturing sector by 2022 so as to increase the share of the manufacturing sector to the contribution
of GDP. The National Manufacturing Policy 2011 has been refurbished as ‘Make in India’ and has been
given better branding and publicity by the current National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.
It goes without saying that the manufacturing sector is critical for the growth of the economy as it has the
potential of a multiplier effect to create subsidiary enterprises and job opportunities. It is also significant
that today the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) contribute 8 per cent of GDP, 45 per cent
Mamkoottam 61

of manufacturing output, and about 40 per cent of exports. In recent years, we have witnessed many
more innovative entrepreneurial initiatives in the space of MSMEs.
While many argue that factors such as inadequate infrastructure, utilities, restrictive labour laws and
practices create serious barriers to the growth of manufacturing, some others argue that manufacturing
policy needs substantive transformation to take advantage of existing resources. Pankaj Chandra (2015)
addresses three debates in Indian manufacturing, namely, volume versus variety, manual versus capital
intensive and low-tech versus hi-tech production, which have created a misalignment between capabilities
and strategies. He presents a framework for transforming the manufacturing policy by focusing on a new
set of enabling factors that will align strategies and help build long-term dynamic capabilities which are
essential for the growth of manufacturing in India. Chandra argues that

if we see India as farmers of science & technology, then we can see a pathway leading to small and large firms
linked together in developing new products and processes that solve mankind’s problems in areas of health care,
housing, transport and even in electronics, space and defence. It is only then that we will remove the constraints
and not optimize around them. (Chandra, 2015)

Labour Laws and Labour Flexibility

It is well known that a plethora of laws, some of which have been enacted during the period of pre-
independent India, regulate labour and employment in India. These laws protect the right to work, right
against discrimination, right to organize and form trade unions, prohibit child labour, ensure fair and
humane conditions of work, protect wages, provide for social security, redressal of grievances, collective
bargaining and participation in management. The labour laws, as expected, are meant to protect the
weaker partner, namely, the workers, vis-à-vis arbitrary decisions of the employer/management that may
adversely affect their employment and employment conditions. Many of the laws have restrictive
implications on the freedom of the employer/management, especially to hire and fire the workers at will,
enforcing minimum wages and working conditions. This legislative framework has earned the notoriety
of creating rigidity and limiting labour flexibility. Flexibility is often seen as an essential requirement to
survive and succeed in the contemporary global market which is highly competitive.
Flexibility, no doubt, facilitates the ease of doing business in the globalized world, with reference to
product design and manufacturing, production process and labour. Labour flexibility refers to a variety
of decisions affecting geographical and occupational mobility of workers, recruitment, deployment and
working hours, which may have direct impact on cost effectiveness, productivity, product quality and
market competitiveness. Flexibility enables a course of action to be modified in accordance with an
encountered situation which may deviate from prior anticipations. Central to the notion of flexibility is
the capability of a system to generate a variety of alternative options so that choices are available to do
things differently or to do something else if the need arises. Flexibility, thus, provides agility, versatility
and resilience, qualities which help modern enterprises respond quickly to the rapidly changing market
and consumer demands. More specifically, labour flexibility in the Indian context would mean less
control by the state and the government on the employer and management, giving them more freedom
and discretion to decide the terms and conditions of employment, including the quantum of wages to be
paid and more importantly to hire and fire labour.
62 Management and Labour Studies 42(1)

Globalization and Labour Reforms

An important land mark in the history of contemporary India has been the New Industrial Policy
announced by the Government of India in July 1991. In response to the pressures of a borderless and
increasingly competitive global economy in 1991, the UPA government announced a series of measures
to liberalize the Indian economy with the objective of transforming and integrating the Indian industrial
and financial sector with the global market. Several major policy measures including privatization of the
public sector organizations, modernization and introduction of new technologies, manpower training and
skill upgradation, rehabilitation of sick industrial units, and, above all, relaxation of state control by
introducing adequate legislative reforms were part of the new policy package. In fact, an organized effort
to tackle industrial sickness had commenced in 1987 with the enactment of the Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the constitution of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
(BIFR). The BIFR, a quasi-judicial body vested with wide-ranging powers, was to act as a single window
for nursing sick units back to health or for recommending their closure. Through an amendment of the
Sick Industrial Companies Act, the jurisdiction of BIFR, which was till then confined to private sector
units, was enlarged to cover sick public sector units as well for rehabilitation (Mamkoottam, 2004).
Although successive governments formed by different political parties and their allies pursuing varied
ideologies have been in power at the centre, the reform process has neither been abandoned nor been
accelerated by any particular government or party in power. All the subsequent governments have
continued the process of deregulation, enlarging the areas of foreign and private investments, and
divestment of the public sector.
In the face of strong opposition from the trade unions of the organized sector, including officers’
associations of the various public sector companies, the UPA government had to abandon an exit policy
which it had promised to announce in 1991. On the other hand, gradually the focus shifted to an approach
of what is called ‘structural reforms with a human face’, by which changes in labour laws would be
introduced in phases. While several steps taken during the UPA regime have improved the climate of
investment and entrepreneurship in India, no substantial change has been introduced in the sensitive area
of labour reforms.
In pursuit of attracting investment and supporting the ‘Make-in-India’ campaign, the current NDA
government has announced a series of legislative reforms, some of which have been attempted by earlier
governments but failed. The Labour Ministry has proposed ‘simplification and rationalisation’ of laws.
The existing 44 central labour laws are proposed to be simplified, rationalized and amalgamated into
four labour codes on (i) wages, (ii) industrial relations, (iii) social security and welfare and (iv) working
conditions and safety. The government has also proposed a draft law for small factories, excluding them
from several of the labour laws, liberating the industrial units from the ‘Inspector Raj’. The Labour
Ministry proposes to integrate the Trade Unions Act, the Industrial Disputes Act and the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act into a single code for industrial relations, an attempt which was
brought in by an earlier government in 1990, which could not be taken it to its logical conclusion. Among
other, proposed changes include scrapping of the labour court, and the board of arbitration. It is also
proposed to allow companies hiring up to 300 (as against the current 100) workers to lay them off
without seeking official sanction. Moreover, a notice period of 6 weeks will be required before workers
could go on strike. These changes are proposed to increase labour flexibility and to make it easier for
setting up small and big factories and establishments in India.
The above changes, if implemented, will surely placate the employers as well as the management,
who have been clamouring for labour reforms especially for making to hire and fire easier. At the same
Mamkoottam 63

time, it may not be easy for the government to obtain the consent and cooperation of the unions. Moreover,
it may not be politically wise to enforce labour reforms without consultations with the trade unions.
More importantly, it will be difficult to implement any change introduced without the broad approval of
all the stakeholders, including labour and the trade unions. Anticipating the apprehensions of the unions,
the current NDA government had constituted a high-level committee to arrive at a consensus among all
stakeholders on the proposed reforms. The high-powered committee could not achieve much and the
unions continued to strongly oppose some of the proposed amendments. The unions are particularly
opposed to changes that may make retrenchment and layoffs of labour and closure of units easier under
the proposed New Industrial Relations Code. In fact, as many as 11 trade unions, including the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP)-backed Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), observed a nationwide strike on 2
September 2015 against the proposed labour reforms. The unions highlighted a charter of demands with
12 points, seeking withdrawal of the proposed changes in the labour laws and stopping the disinvestment
and privatization of public sector undertakings (PSUs). The unions are also said to have demanded an
increase in the bonus ceiling as well as widening the coverage of health insurance and provident fund, to
include construction workers in schemes such as Anganwadis.
Emphasizing that ‘ease of doing business’ is the first and foremost requirement to ensure the success
of the ‘Make-in-India’ campaign, the prime minister recently announced several new measures to end
what is known as the ‘Inspector Raj’ by curbing the discretion of the labour inspectors and by proposing
that companies have a single window compliance process on labour-related issues. The moot question
remains ‘is the rigid legislative framework the only impediment to increasing labour flexibility?’ Papola
and Pais (2007) have argued that labour regulation may not be the dominant factor that has caused
inflexibility in the labour market. They refer to the increased labour flexibility that has taken place
gradually since the 1980s, with no significant changes in labour regulations, as a case in point. Labour
flexibility is also a reflection of the industrial relations that prevail, while industrial relations are likely
to be affected by the degree of labour flexibility.

Industrial Relations
By definition, industrial relations are dynamic in nature, as any relations would be. Several decades ago,
John Dunlop (1958) explained industrial relations through a systems perspective. In dealing with the
problem of industrial relations in general, Dunlop indicated the possibility of differentiating among
different relationships based on peculiar socio-economic conditions of the society concerned. According
to him, the term ‘industrial relations’ should not be construed to denote union–management relations
operating within the spectrum of industrial peace or conflict. On the contrary, it should be taken as one
concerned with the larger subject of industrial relations as a whole, in which there are interactions among
other groups as well as the linkages established with the economic and social systems prevailing in a
society. Thus, the full range of complex interactions among the various groups such as workers and
managers, workers’ trade unions and employers and their organizations, together with this interaction
linked with the social system as a whole and more particularly with the economic system, is referred to
as the industrial relations system. The character and quality of this complex set of relations will be
influenced by the approaches and strategies adopted by important institutions such as the employer, trade
union, government and the larger society and economy including the labour market. As in the case of all
other relations, industrial relations can be sustained only within an environment of a minimum degree of
order, and that is the task of the institutions that make up the context of industrial relations (Flanders,
64 Management and Labour Studies 42(1)

1970). Cordial relations are an important precondition for productive interactions, and harmony is based
on proactive rather than reactive strategies on the part of individuals and institutions that are engaged
with each other. All such relations are based on rules and norms many of which are non-negotiable. It is
in this context that the process and ownership of rule-making and regulation become important.
Industrial relations in India have gone through several phases ranging from different degrees of
harmony to different levels of conflict. Industrial relations differ from other kind of relations in the sense
that the partner institutions and individuals often may not have the choice to terminate the relation for
want of alternate choices. In that sense, expecting a very high level of labour flexibility may not be
realistic within a given environment. Indian industrial relations have been built on a rather complex set
of engagements among the employer, the government and the trade unions within the larger context of
politics, employment, economic condition, technology and the labour/product/service market. In more
ways than one, the major players, including the government, employer and trade unions, have often
adopted strategies which are more reactive than proactive to deal with the challenges of the changing
scenario of the larger context. As is well known, the state in Independent India continued to play a direct
and dominant role to regulate industrial relations by legislative process often restricting the freedom of
the other players, namely, the employer and the trade unions. Third-party intervention, which minimizes
the role of bilateral negotiation and bargaining, has been the norm.
What is often not clear is the reason for the government to have taken or not taken certain policy steps
which would directly impinge on the character and complexion of industrial relations. At times, political
expediency rather than economic and social rationality seems to have prompted policy formulation with
serious consequences. Debashis Bhattacherjee (2001) argues that for a large and complex country like
India, where economy, polity and history are inextricably linked, the evolution of industrial relations has
been incremental and adaptive. The dominant and extraordinary role of the state may be appreciated,
given the complexity and unusual character of the labour market.

The Indian Labour Market

The Indian labour market is highly segmented, if not fragmented, in terms of caste, region, gender,
location and above all, in terms of forms of employment leading to extreme levels of labour market
inequalities. The most striking is the difference between those employed in the formal (organized) sector
vis-à-vis those in the informal (unorganized) sector of the economy. The difference is accentuated not
only in terms of regularity of employment but more so in terms of the quantum of wages and the kind of
working conditions of the two sectors. In fact, this gap gets further widened due to the constant flow of
agricultural labour from rural areas, adding to the unorganized labour force of the urban centres and their
fringes. The large number of under-employed labour force engaged in the unorganized sector is perhaps
the biggest challenge for the Indian economy. According to some estimates (IHD, 2014), more than 25
per cent of the work force is engaged in casual, seasonal work or self-engaged, earning much less than
subsistence level wages. While conducting field investigation for a study on ‘Bench marking living
wages’ in rural UP, the author of this article found that most workers live in unsafe and unhygienic
housing conditions, often with no basic amenities such as electricity, and drinking water, with many
having no access to health and education.
About 56 per cent of the Indian population belong to the labour force; in 2012, there were around 487
million workers, the second largest after China. According to the World Bank (2012) estimates, 47 per
cent of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, but contributing only 18 per cent to the GDP. On the
Mamkoottam 65

contrary, the service sector, which generates only 28 per cent of employment, contributes 50 per cent of
the GDP. At the same time, industry has a share of 25 per cent of employment and contributes only 32
per cent to the GDP. Within the category of industry, the contribution of manufacturing would be much
lower in terms of both employment and contribution to GDP. This low share of manufacturing in
employment and GDP is much lower than that of most other (East Asian and Southeast Asian) countries.
The engagement of an overwhelmingly large percentage of workers, as much as 92 per cent, in the
informal sector, distorts the Indian labour market. A vast majority of the workers engaged in the informal
sector earn very low wages with limited or no social protection. This may be true also for a substantial
proportion of workers in the organized sector as well.
In fact, given the young age structure of the Indian population, India’s labour force is expected to
surpass that of China by 2030. However, the so-called demographic dividend that was expected to accrue
to India may elude her unless this young population is provided with education and occupational skills.
The National Skill Development Corporation, which was initially created by the last UPA government,
has been revived by the current NDA government to address the problem.
Over half the workers are self-employed, largely with a poor asset base, and around 30 per cent are
casual labourers seeking employment on a daily basis. As mentioned earlier, less than 8 per cent of the
labour force has regular, full-time employment with social protection (Institute of Human Development
(IHD), 2014). All this could partially explain the large number of people still living below the poverty
line, with a per capita monthly income less than `816 for rural India and `1,000 for urban India.
According to the latest NSS (2011–2012) data, 25.7 per cent (216.5 million) of the rural population and
52.8 per cent (269.3 million) of the urban population of India live in poverty, perhaps the largest habitat
of the world’s poor, paradoxically coexisting with a large number of millionaires at the same time.
Different reports and surveys indicate that employment in the formal (organized) sector has been
reducing while it has increased in the informal and unorganized sector. The informal sector is not only
unregulated but also unprotected. Availability of employment for the millions of job seekers in the
organized sector with reasonably good wages may therefore remain a distant dream.
Subcontracting of manufacturing jobs, often leading to home-based self-employment, and the rise in
the share of the tertiary sector, both of which accounts for a large percentage of low-income jobs in the
non-agricultural sector, continues to make the labour market extremely vulnerable. This is more so as the
self-employed and the contractual employees are deprived of benefits relating to health, leave and
retirement, even in the organized sector. In fact, a large component of the salary of the contract labour is
expropriated by the new intermediary class of contractors which has been created in recent years. The
intervention of the intermediary in the space of contract employment tends to deprive the labour of their
due share. At the same time, casualization of employment is aggravated by the high rate of unemployment
among the rural and urban youth. The proportion of educated among the unemployed is reported to be as
high as 60 per cent among males and 70 per cent for females, which led to the popular coinage of the
term jobless growth in the 1990s.
In the process of modernization and infusion of innovative technologies, major changes have also
taken place in the workplace, work organization and the skill sets of the manpower. Replacing old
technologies and machineries with new is also often accompanied by replacement of work processes and
manpower. Obsolescence of technology also leads to obsolescence of human resources. While the
microprocessor-based modern technology makes manpower redundant, it also creates demands for new
skill sets. Therefore, a large share of new jobs which are being generated are at the two ends of the
spectrum; the low-skilled and low-paid jobs in the construction and the services sector at one end, and
the executive and high-paid jobs in the IT, Information Technology-enabled Services (ITES) and the
66 Management and Labour Studies 42(1)

newly emerging retailing and e-commerce sectors at the other end. There is a rising middle class, who
are better educated and skilled earning relatively higher levels of income. Information technology,
automobiles, pharmaceuticals, media, telecom and financial services are among the sectors of the
economy which have been absorbing the new middle class. At the same time, low-productivity
employment in the agricultural, industrial and services sectors continue to dominate the Indian labour
market (IHD, 2014). Given the very fragmented nature of the labour market, a large proportion of the
labour market which belongs to the unorganized informal sector continues to remain outside the purview
of the formal industrial relations framework. Any labour reforms therefore tend to have limited impact
on the larger labour market, as trade unions, which are a major player and bargaining partner, rarely, if
ever, extend their wings to the unorganized sector either.

Trade Unions
The distinct character of Indian industrial relations may be attributed to the origin and development of
the trade union movement in India. The Trade Unions Act 1926 provided legal protection for the Indian
labour union movement, largely mobilized as part of the country’s struggle for independence. Indian
trade unions have been closely associated and assisted in terms of leadership and finances by political
parties. In return, political leaders have often hijacked trade unions for political interests, even at the cost
of the interests of unions and their members. Many strikes and labour protests may have been motivated
to promote the interests of political parties rather than that of the work force. As a result, unions have
often resorted to political patronage of those parties in power. When they did not receive such goodwill,
they used to adopt confrontationist strategies exploiting especially the support of political parties in the
opposition, often generating an adversarial climate of industrial relations. What has resulted is multi-
unionism and trade union rivalry, resulting in fragmented and weak trade unions in India.
While the number of unions has grown substantially after independence, the same cannot be said
about the density and bargaining strength of trade unions in India. The proliferation of trade unions,
which reflect the proliferation of political parties, has been a distinguishing feature of the trade union
history in India during the post-independence period. Union membership is concentrated in the organized
sector. It is estimated that only a small percentage of the Indian labour force belong to any union or while
a very large majority of Indian workers do not belong to any trade union. Many workers in the private
sector, in particular, are not covered by any collective bargaining agreements. The growth of the informal
sector, along with the decline of manufacturing, has eroded the strength of trade unions. Much of the
support for trade union has traditionally come from the manufacturing sector and that too from employees
of the public sector organizations. Trade union density has declined globally during the past two decades,
and India is perhaps no exception. Introduction of new technologies, along with modernization of plant
and machinery and the growth of the services sector, has also created a new workplace and a new worker
in Indian industry. Employment of unskilled and semi-skilled manpower has reduced in the formal
sector, especially in the public sector. The new worker of the formal sector, and especially that of the
private sector, is more educated, better skilled and better paid; they are not as much dependent on the
support of trade unions and much less inclined to respond to the agenda set by national trade union
centres. The modern management practices which are based on the philosophy of human resource
development have also weakened the trade unions, thereby changing the complexion of industrial
relations.
Mamkoottam 67

Conclusion
The industrial relations climate has changed during the past two decades, especially since the
announcement of the economic policies in 1991. Attitudes and strategies of the union and the management
towards each other, as well as the worker–union relations, seem to have undergone a change. Workers
find less relevance in their unions being driven by an agenda set by political parties or national union
centres. Increasingly, it is the enterprise-based rather than industry or national level unions which appear
to appeal to workers. The new generation of younger workers and their unions prefer to concentrate on
specific issues and problems reflecting their immediate context affecting their work, working conditions
and benefits. At the same time, the larger national centres of trade unions, which are closely linked, if not
affiliated, to political parties are also facing a dilemma—whether to abide by the dictum of the party and
focus on issues at a national level or to respond to the demands of the workers which are confined to
boundaries of enterprises. The participation of BMS, which has its political allegiance to the BJP, in the
recent national strike organized on 2 September 2015 is an indication of the changing trend.
It is not clear if labour reforms alone can make the ‘Make-in-India’ campaign succeed! We may also
like to examine and debate the likely consequences of introducing some of the proposed labour reforms
in creating an imbalance in the bargaining power of management and the workers. It is also important to
ensure that while protecting the interests of investors and employers and thereby strengthening their
hands, the basic rights of the workers are not compromised, if not neglected, which could further weaken
the workers and their bargaining power. It is equally important to ensure that while introducing and
enlarging labour flexibility, the existing inequality in the labour market is not allowed to grow further.
Perhaps the employer has to share much more responsibility for developing manpower by constantly
upgrading their skills and preparing them to embrace technological and organizational changes, while
the government focuses more on developing a balanced labour market, to reduce social and economic
inequality. Fortunately, the intellectual debate on inequality has spilled over to the public space, or else
Thomas Piketty’s book on Capital in the Twenty-first Century would not have become a best seller
(Engel & Martin, 2015).

References
Bhattacherjee, D. (2001). The evolution of Indian industrial relations: A comparative perspective. Industrial
Relations Journal, 32(3), 244–263.
Chandra, P. (2015). Pivoting Indian manufacturing policy differently (unpublished).
Dunlop, J.T. (1958). The industrial relations system. UK: Holt.
Engel, S., & Martin, B. (2015). Challenging economic inequality. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(49), 42–48.
Flanders, A. (1970). Management and unions. London: Faber.
IHD. (2014). Institute of Human Development, New Delhi.
Mamkoottam, K. (2004). Labour and change. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Papola, T.S., & Pais, J. (2007). Debate on labour market reforms in India: A case of misplaced focus. Indian Journal
of Labour Economics, 50(2).