COVID pandemic was a Sign of change in the existing world order. What initiated as an ad interim to maintain the continuity in business services very quickly transformed into a long term paradigm shift that is remote work.Remote work offered flexibility across sectors while the corporates realized the potential for maintaining safety, ensuring cost efficiency and productivity. However this structure of remote work revealed a major gap in the existing labor laws and company laws which is an indication that Indian legislations are yet not up to pace with the rapidly changing world order. The existing labor laws were made with keeping physical work places as an ideal method of conducting business and was designed for physical work places and industrial Era hierarchy which struggles to address the flexible remote employment. The main aim of this article is to explore how remote work has made an impact in employment relations, and the legal questions it has created and why urgent reforms are needed to address this increasing gap in India’s labor laws. Before the sudden change in 2020 remote work was seen as a perk reserved for it spaces and creative sectors which offered freelancing predominantly. With sudden advent of COVID 19 Indian companies very successfully adopted this hybrid and fully remote model to keep the businesses running. Yet the labor laws such as factories act 1948, shops and establishment act till date emphasizes on a fixed workplaces and defined working hours
The OSH Code of 2020 came into place to bring into play and revise a significant number of old labor laws relating to safety, welfare, and working conditions. Nevertheless, the draft remains wedded to an industrialized mentality where appearance and feel of a working environment such as distinctly defined establishment, a manageable environment and direct oversight of staff by superiors remain applicable.
This article has closely examined how remote working puts the OSH Code to the test, delved into what the courts are already saying on the matter, and examined how other nations are tackling the issue, in order to determine whether the safety law of India can actually deal with the digital workplace.
The code of the OSH is a conglomeration of thirteen labor laws such as the Factories Act of 1948, and aims at ensuring safe and human friendly working conditions. One of the main notions concerning the Code is what will be defined as an establishment or a work place; both of those notions, of course, presuppose a specific physical location that can be managed by the employer.
Telecommuting reverses that assumption. As long as individuals are working at home or elsewhere, the physical border between work and home is practically destroyed. The fact that the OSH Code does not specifically refer to the concept of home offices or virtual locations makes it vague whether the safety regulations remain on the filing table.
That puts the two employers and workers in the grey part of legal matters in reality, the law may want them to do something on paper, but what exactly that is remains unclear.
The OSH Code informs the employer that he or she must ensure that the work is safe and do reasonable things to prevent hazards. However when the work occurs at home then that raises some tough enquiries.
- But does the employer really have to be responsible of the accidents that occur in a home office?
- Is it possible to treat injury resulting due to low ergonomics, mental pressure or burnout as an occupational risk?
- And how far can employers make rules or examine the circumstances of a home set-up?
Indian courts have a history of using a welfare-first approach to the interpretation of safety statutes. The Supreme Court has stated a number of times that regulations on safety, ought to be interpreted liberally to increase the protection of the worker rather than reinstructed by specific definitions. Assuming that, in that way of reasoning, the judges may apply the tort of statutory negligence to an employer in cases of injury that occur at home provided that it is obvious that the job is connected to the accident. However, this change should be balanced by privacy, since excessive stalk-the-home by employers may amount to the diminishment of the autonomy of people.
It is true that the OSH Code acknowledges that mental and physical health is important, despite its provisions still seeming like an archaic concern with material hazards. However, remote work introduces the new forms of risk: digital exhaustion, isolation, burnouts, and the level of stress that sets in as a result of constant being available. We are seeing that courts in India are taking mental health as a massive constituent of the dignity and the right to live or die. Although there has not been a notable case in which that is linked to remote working under the OSH Code, judges are likely to interpret safety obligations intentionally whenever a case arises. Relocating the lens like that would perfectly align with the primary objective of the OSH Code ensuring the protection of the workers against emerging risks, even when those are not physical and delivered through the digital means. Indian judges have already misinterpreted the definition of Strategic Workplace to the extent they are able to actually defend employees. They put more emphasis on where that work takes place to the extent to which it becomes harmful.
In the case of the remote jobs, such an attitude provides an indication that the courts would perceive a home office as an extension of the workplace- at least when facing matters related to safety. However, given that employers do not completely creep into every corner of the home (as they do in factories or offices), it cannot be feasible to ensure that all are of equal safety. That tug of war demonstrates why OSH Code should truly have more explicit rules outlining what employers ought to do in remote arrangement without trespassing privacy boundaries.
An examination of the way other nations address this provides us with fair hints as to how safety regulations can reduce with remote work. The labour laws of France have finally officially accepted telework, which places safety responsibilities in remote areas but retains the obligation of the employers to responsibility only to the work related hazards. Ergonomics and digital fatigue must be informed to the workers by the employer but not intruding into their homes.
In a more global European context, the EU emphasizes the need to expand safety legislation to include psychosocial risks, such as stress and burnout, in the case where employment remains online.
These examples struck a chord: they provide the employer with a responsibility in case, however, the injury was work-related; but not to violate the privacy of home. The offsite nature of workers has forced employers to turn on digital solutions to monitoring productivity and compliance to rules. Semi-surveillance would be reasonable to ensure the safety and cooperation, whereas in the case of invasive spying, significant red flags emerge.
In the viewpoint of engineering safety, it can be a dangerous undertaking to watch over once it gets too burdensome itself, which contributes to anxiety and stress. The proportionality and reasonableness concept is already a struggle in Indian courts over constitutional cases, and such constructs are likely to influence the manner in which the courts will make decision over surveillance under OSH Code.
A case law in Europe would prefer the monitoring of employees to be as discrete and not as mandatory in case of the workplace as a personal area. The rules might guide Indian judges who may want to reconcile the safety checks and the dignity of the employees. These difficulties of remote work cannot be addressed merely on the judicial interpretation. The OSH Code requires sure-shots like making the remote and hybrid work arrangements official; specifying what the employers will pay as far the home-based risks are concerned; considering mental health and digital fatigue to be real safety issues; establishing the safety standards on the basis of proper guidance and training rather than on a mere physical inspection.
Such changes would ensure the safety law remains uptodate in a spread-out, digital economy.
Conclusion
Remote work has fundamentally altered the meaning of occupational safety and exposed the limitations of legal frameworks designed for physical workplaces. While the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 represents an important step towards consolidation, it remains tethered to industrial-era assumptions.
Judicial trends in India suggest a willingness to interpret safety obligations expansively to protect workers, even in remote environments. Comparative international models demonstrate that occupational safety can be extended to digital workplaces without sacrificing privacy or flexibility.
Ultimately, the future relevance of the OSH Code depends on its ability to evolve recognizing that the workplace is no longer a fixed location, but a functional space shaped by technology, connectivity, and changing power relations.
Contributed by :- Aradhya Akshat (Intern)