Why Karnataka is saying no to Centre’s 10-hour workday plan

Bengaluru city

The Karnataka government has firmly opposed the Centre’s proposal to amend the state’s Shops and Establishments Act, which sought to increase daily working hours from 9 to 10 while keeping the weekly limit at 48 hours. According to a TOI report, the state has rejected the move, asserting its authority under the Concurrent List to decide labour policies.

Officials confirmed that the decision was taken after extensive consultations with stakeholders, including trade unions, who overwhelmingly opposed the longer workday. While the state is yet to formally communicate its stance to the Centre, labour commissioner HN Gopalkrishna was cited by TOI as saying that a final report is pending review with Labour Minister Santosh S Lad.

“We have sent our report to the minister, who, in turn, is expected to discuss it with the chief minister and arrive at a final decision on the issue. We’re yet to accept or reject the report,” Gopalkrishna said, as cited by TOI.

Karnataka’s current labour laws already permit overtime beyond the nine-hour daily limit, provided the 48-hour weekly cap is maintained. Sources cited by TOI  pointed out that the previous BJP government had amended the Factories and Boilers Act, allowing extended hours if employers, employees and the government mutually agree, a provision that can be applied on a case-by-case basis.

However, officials criticised the Centre’s proposal as an “extreme measure” with far-reaching consequences for workplace culture. “The recent amendment suggested by the Centre is a blanket change, unlike our flexible approach,” an official said.

The debate has drawn sharp reactions, with the IT and ITeS sectors reportedly lobbying for the change to legitimise longer work hours. Despite internal pressure within the bureaucracy to accept the amendment, the labour department has held its ground.

Labour Minister Lad had already signalled Karnataka’s resistance earlier this year during a meeting of state labour ministers, officials revealed. The state’s position underscores the broader tension between central directives and regional autonomy in labour policy.