IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i3p696-720..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Curious Case of Judicial Interpretation and Labour Flexibility in India

Author

Listed:
  • Girish Balasubramanian
  • Surendra Babu Talluri
  • Santanu Sarkar

Abstract

The economic liberalisation of the 1990s in India led to calls for increased labour flexibility. As achieving legislative reform proved difficult, the focus shifted to judicial interpretation of existing labour statutes. We present evidence that Indian courts changed their interpretations of labour laws over time, favouring flexibility at the expense of the protective purposes underlying the legislation. Our study is based on analysis of a sample of 196 judgments of senior appellate courts between 1999 and 2019 on protective provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The tendency of the Indian courts to support interpretations consistent with the goal of labour flexibility may be said to illustrate the role of the judiciary in promoting market-led economic development, but it also suggests a degree of bias in the courts’ approach to questions of labour law adjudication.

Suggested Citation

  • Girish Balasubramanian & Surendra Babu Talluri & Santanu Sarkar, 2023. "The Curious Case of Judicial Interpretation and Labour Flexibility in India," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(3), pages 696-720.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:696-720.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwad004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:696-720.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.