Context: The nativist labour laws of Andhra Pradesh and Haryana victimises the low-income migrant workers.
Facts in favour of nativist labour laws:
Most migration for work in India happens within state borders.
The Census 2011 data revealed that in almost all Indian districts, less than 10% of the urban workforce comprised of inter- state migrants.
Evolution of nativist labour laws in India
Pre-Independence: E.g. Mulki rules in Nizam-ruled Hyderabad in the late 19th century favoured local employment.
Post-Independence E.g.
Anti-South Indian movements in Bombay in the 1960s.
“Sons of the soil” movement in Assam.
Recent developments:
Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill, 2019: Reserves 75 % of jobs for locals.
Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Bill, 2020: Reserves 75 % of jobs in the private sector for locals (for jobs with salary under Rs. 50,000 per month).
Problems associated with nativist labour laws
Unconstitutional: Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of place of birth. (Article 16)
In Charu Khurana v Union of India case (2014):Supreme Court clearly renders that the restrictions based on residence for the purposes of employment is unconstitutional.
Curtail the employer’s choice: of recruiting labour from anywhere in the country. E.g. Surat’s power loom industry employs workers from Odisha as locals do not aspire for that job.
Anti-migrant laws: Life will become tougher for low-income inter-state migrant workers in India:
They are already suffering from precarious livelihoods, lacks access to portable social security etc…
Inequality: E.g. the income cut-off in Haryana’s law allows the rich to move anywhere in India and work as they please but denies the same to poorer inter-state migrant workers.
Send out bad signals in the labour market: because of restricting migration choices.
Promotes subnational nativism: as thus they sow the seeds of the balkanisation of country.