While such statements may appear motivational on the surface, they are deeply flawed, legally untenable and ignore well-established research on labour productivity. More importantly, they directly contravene multiple Indian labour laws, including the Factories Act, 1948, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as well as international commitments under the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Before making such reckless and populist proclamations, policy-makers must first acquaint themselves with the legal framework governing labour rights or initiate a structured discussion on potential amendments in consultation with all stakeholders.
This article presents a structured multi-facet rebuttal to Mr Kant’s proposal, demonstrating how it contravenes labour laws, undermines employment generation and exposes workers and businesses to legal consequences.
1. Legal Violations of Indian Labour Laws
Working hours and overtime regulations
Indian labour laws establish strict working hour limits to protect workers from exploitation and ensure their well-being. The Factories Act, 1948, explicitly sets these limits:
• Daily working hours: Maximum of 9 hours per day (Section 54).
• Weekly working hours: Maximum of 48 hours per week (Section 51).
• Overtime compensation: Any work beyond these limits must be compensated at twice the regular wage (Section 59).
Even under exemptions granted in Section 65, the absolute legal ceiling remains 12 hours per day and 60 hours per week, with a quarterly limit of 75 overtime hours. The suggestion that workers put in 80-90 hours per week would necessitate 11-13 hours of daily work which is blatantly illegal.
Worker consent and legal limits on overtime
A critical element of India’s overtime regulations is that overtime cannot be imposed unilaterally by employers. Workers must provide explicit consent for overtime work. Additionally, overtime is strictly limited by:
• A weekly ceiling of 60 total working hours
• A quarterly limit of 75 overtime hours (though some states have extended this to 144 hours)
• A prohibition on overtime for more than seven consecutive days
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which is yet to be fully implemented, reinforces the 8-hour workday standard. Mr Kant’s proposal disregards these protections and could expose employers to criminal liability under labour laws.
2. Health and Safety Implications of Excessive Work Hours
Excessive working hours are directly linked to serious health and safety risks. Studies indicate that working beyond 50 hours per week leads to:
• Higher risk of cardiovascular diseases
• Increased workplace accidents due to fatigue
• Mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression
The Factories Act, 1948, addresses these concerns through:
• Mandatory rest intervals: At least half an hour of rest after every 5 hours of continuous work (Section 55).
• Work spread limitations: The total work period, including breaks, should not exceed 10.5 hours per day (Section 56).
Ignoring these statutory protections would endanger workers’ health and undermine long-term productivity goals.
3. Employment Generation vs Overtime Expansion
Overtime Reduces Employment Opportunities
Encouraging extreme overtime reduces overall employment opportunities. If businesses rely on excessive working hours instead of hiring additional workers, it concentrates income among fewer employees and exacerbates unemployment.
Economic burden of overtime pay
The law mandates double wages for overtime work (Section 59 of the Factories Act). Consider the financial implications for an employer:
• A worker earning Rs300 per day working four extra hours at double wages would cost Rs600 per day.
• Over a month, this amounts to Rs18,000 in overtime pay which is equivalent to hiring another full-time employee.
Thus, excessive overtime increases labour costs, making it economically inefficient and legally risky.
4. International Standards and India's Commitments
India has ratified multiple International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions that limit working hours:
• Hours of work (industry) convention, 1919 (No. 1): Sets an 8-hour workday and 48-hour workweek.
• Forty-hour week convention, 1935 (No. 47): Promotes a 40-hour workweek without reducing living standards.
Mr Kant’s suggestion violates these international commitments, damaging India’s global reputation as a nation that upholds worker rights, apart from providing the opposition parties ready ammunition to target the Modi government which, they allege, is pro-corporate and anti-worker.
5. Comparative Analysis: Overtime Laws in Other Countries
In India, the standard weekly working hours are set at 48, with a strict legal limit on overtime, which is compensated at 100% of the regular wage, effectively doubling the pay. In China, the standard workweek is 44 hours, and overtime is paid at a 50% premium, with a maximum of 36 overtime hours allowed per week. The United States has a 40-hour workweek, with overtime paid at a 50% premium, though there is no federal cap on weekly overtime. Similarly, Japan also follows a 40-hour workweek with a 50% overtime premium, and the country is gradually moving toward shorter workweeks. South Korea, which previously had a 68-hour workweek, has implemented reforms reducing it to 52 hours, with a 50% overtime premium, emphasising improved worker welfare.
India should follow this global trend rather than regress to 80-90 hour workweeks.
6. The Impact of AI on Labour-intensive Jobs
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed many traditionally labour-intensive jobs, including coding, copywriting, image creation, and editing. AI tools have streamlined these processes, enabling a single, well-trained individual to perform the work of five workers who do not utilise AI. This shift enhances efficiency and economic output, reducing the need for excessively long working hours. Paradoxically, this technological advancement could also lead to job displacement in sectors like software and digital content creation. In this scenario, Mr Kant’s suggestion for longer work hours is not only anachronistic but also demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of how AI and automation have redefined the way white-collar professionals engage with their tasks. Instead of advocating for an outdated, exploitative work culture, policy-makers should focus on upskilling the workforce and integrating AI into productivity strategies.
Summing Up
Mr Kant’s call for an 80-90 hour workweek is not only unrealistic but also illegal under Indian labour laws and international commitments. His suggestion ignores the well-established legal limits on working hours, disregards health and safety concerns, and fails to acknowledge the transformative impact of AI in redefining work efficiency.
Rather than pushing workers to extreme exhaustion, policy-makers and business leaders should focus on improving productivity through technology—including cutting-edge AI—, streamlining decision-making processes, and addressing bureaucratic inefficiencies that cause project delays. The path to economic growth is not through exploiting workers but through fostering innovation, efficiency and sustainable employment opportunities.
In the modern world, economic success is measured not by the number of hours worked but by the quality and efficiency of work produced. India’s ambition to become a US$30trn (trillion) economy must be built on a foundation of labour rights, technological advancements and balanced economic policies—not outdated, exploitative work norms.
(Karan Bir Singh (KBS) Sidhu is an officer from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre (1984 batch). After 37 years of service, he retired as special chief secretary of the Punjab government on 31 July 2021.)
