INTRODUCTION
Labour statutes mostly focus on wages, social security, and formal hours of work, primarily catering to the formal sector, which includes employees in organised industries, registered businesses, and government services that adhere to labour laws and regulations. This emphasis is evident in statutes like The Factories Act,1948[1], which regulates hours of work, overtime and occupational conditions for workers employed in registered manufacturing establishments. Despite this structured framework, digitalisation, hybrid work, and pandemic-induced changes have brought to light an underlying issue: “Invisible working hours”, especially in the formal sector. “Invisible working hours” refers to that time during which an employee is performing work-related duties, like responding to calls and emails, attending meetings outside working hours, pre- and post-shift tasks, wrap-up procedures, and employer-mandated round-the-clock availability, which is neither recorded nor remunerated. These expectations challenge employees’ right to a dignified life, as conferred in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[2], which not only includes mere survival but also the right to live with dignity, comprising adequate rest, leisure, privacy, and mental well-being[3].
The increased availability during after-hours and constant connectivity add to stress and mental fatigue, and blur the boundaries between professional and personal life.[4] Therefore, this blog examines how Indian labour statutes in the formal sector lack adequate safeguards against this subtle problem and identifies enforcement gaps that leave after-hours labour unprotected.
LEGAL STATUS: WORKING HOURS AND OVERTIME RULES
According to Section 51 of the Factories Act, no adult worker is required to work more than 48 hours in a week or 9 hours in a day (according to Section 54). Any time worked beyond this limit qualifies for overtime under Section 59 and guarantees pay at twice the ordinary wage rate. The statute, however, does not expressly recognise after-hours digital labour as ‘work’, but by applying a purposive interpretation, such activity may constitute ‘work’ where it is performed in the course of employment and under the direction of the employer.
For non-factory workplaces like shops, offices, and commercial establishments, each state is governed by its own Shops and Establishments Act (for example, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961[5]), which has a similar standard working time allotment and overtime rules that provide for double the ordinary pay.
Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (OSH), 2020.[6] Replaced 13 Central Labour laws with a single legislation, which reiterates the working hours to be 48 hours a week and not more than 8 hours a day, while permitting an alternate schedule like 12 hours per day in a 4-day week and 9.5 hours in a 5-day week. The OSH code continues the rule of double wages for overtime.
These provisions are rooted in international labour standards and ILO conventions, namely the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention,1919 [7]and Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930[8]. However, the mere existence of these laws has not prevented work intensification and digital overtime is not tracked as hours worked.
JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v State of Gujarat,[9] in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Gujarat had relaxed certain rules under the Factories Act 1948 to ‘boost efficiency’ in commercial activities. This relaxation was mostly focused on Sections 51,54,55, and 56 of the Act, which regulated working hours and rest intervals.In deciding the validity of the notification, the court examined the meaning of ‘public emergency’ and stated that economic fluctuations caused by the lockdown do not amount to such an emergency and the notification allowing extended shifts and overtime rates was quashed.
This decision by the Supreme Court is evident that the statutory working hour limits cannot be deprived by the executive even during economic stress.
RIGHT TO DISCONNECT
The origin of this right is traced to Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that ‘Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay’.[10] This rule serves as an interpretive tool to protect after-hours boundaries and advocates for psycho-social stress, job strain, lack of productivity and prolonged screen time. The term “life” defined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not just include mere existence, but to live with liberty, dignity and a chance for private life and leisure. [11]France was one of the first nations to implement this right in 2017. Several other countries, including Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, and Ireland, have introduced similar policies. India, however, has not yet implemented this right.[12]
On 28th October 2019, a member of Parliament, Supriya Sule, introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2018, as a private members’ bill in the Lok Sabha. The proposed bill sought to protect employees’ welfare by conferring the right to disengage from work-related communications outside official working hours and stipulating overtime remuneration and penalties for non-compliance. However, the bill was criticised for being ambiguous and was not passed by the parliament.[13]
On December 5th, 2025, National Congress Party MP Supriya Sule introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill 2025, proposing the establishment of an Employees’ Welfare Authority to oversee compliance with the legislation. The proposed authority would investigate complaints and would impose penalties of up to 1% of total employee remuneration for non-compliant employers. The bill is currently pending in the Lok Sabha.[14]
THE FORMAL SECTOR: HOW INVISIBILITY OPERATES
- STATUTORY GAPS: The Factories Act 1948 and most state Shops and Establishment Acts (for example: The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961)[15]. Cap the workweek at 48 hours, but this mainly applies to manufacturing and factory workers. Office-based, professional, and managerial staff fall outside the scope of these acts and are governed by individual contracts, leaving digital and after-hours labour largely unregulated.
- SALARIED “EXEMPT” CLASSIFICATION: Many employment contracts impose broad standing order clauses without specifying overtime pay for after-work availability. This loophole is widely used in India’s formal sector and service sector, where there are no statutes regarding invisible labour, allowing firms to acquire long hours without proper pay.[16]
For example, in India, the IT and BPO sectors, employees often work “client hours”, involving late-night or early shifts due to time-zone differences. Despite formal 9-5 contracts, they’re expected to be available for clients, meetings, or issues outside office hours
- DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND HYBRID WORK: Remote-work tools like emails, virtual meetings, on-system surveillance applications and instant messaging applications blur the line between work and leisure, but such intensive internet use has shown signs of lower productivity rather than increasing efficiency, yet firms do not record this invisible labour.[17]
- MANAGERIAL CULTURE: In many formal sectors, managerial practices generate implicit expectations rather than formal instructions of continuous employee digital availability beyond prescribed working hours, which can lead to extreme pressure on the part of employees who are constantly worried about career penalties and job loss.
CONCLUSION
India’s labour laws set a standard ceiling on working hours and overtime pay. Despite existing regulations, many employees face pressure to work extended hours. The Right to Disconnect Bill 2025 proposes a step forward; however, the lawmakers should establish clear guidelines to track and compensate employees for extra hours worked. By acknowledging invisible work, Indian labour statutes can promote a healthier work environment where workers are not mentally drained and exhausted; rather, they can focus on increasing the firm’s productivity and upholding the dignity of its workforce.
Author(s) Name: M Jananiya (Kristu Jayanti College of Law)
References:
[1] Factories Act 1948
[2] Constitution of India art 21
[3] Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors (1981) 1 SCC 608
[4] Lingling Li,’ Differential Effects of Proactive and Reactive Work Connectivity Behaviour After-Hours on Well-Being at Work: A Boundary Theory Perspective’ (2025) Behavioral Sciences
<https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/3/320> accessed 27 January 2026
[5] Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, s 7
[6] Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020, ss 25, 27
[7] Hours of Work (Industry) Convention,1919 (Adopted 28 November 1919)
[8] Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1930 (entered into force 29 August 1933)
[9] Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr v State of Gujarat WP(C) No. 708 of 2020 (Supreme Court of India)
[10] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III) art 24
[11] Nigma Jagadesh, ‘Right to Disconnect, for a Better Work-Life Balance’ (Vintage Legal, 2 December 2025)
<https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/right-to-disconnect-for-a-better-work-life-balance> accessed 8 December 2025
[12] ibid
[13] Harish Jain, ‘The Right to Disconnect: Balancing Work and Well-being in the Digital Age’ (NLIU Law Review Blog, 12 November 2024)
<https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/the-right-to-disconnect-balancing-work-and-well-being-in-the-digital-age/> accessed 9 December 2025
[14] Shubhi,’ Right to Disconnect Bill 2025 Tabled in Lok Sabha: Will India Move Towards Better Work-life Balance’ (SCC Times, 10 December 2025)
<https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/10/right-to-disconnect-bill-2025/> accessed 27 January 2026
[15] The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1961
[16] Swetha Jetti, ‘Contractual Loopholes and Labour Law Exemptions: How India’s IT Sector Circumvents Overtime Pay and Maximum Working Hours Regulations’(2025) International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research
<https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/1/35006.pdf > accessed 9 December 2025
[17] Mohiuddin Hussain Sohail, ‘Remote Work Culture: The Impact of Digital Transformation on Workforce Productivity’, (Science Letters, 2025) Science Letters
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392776968_Remote_Work_Culture_The_Impact_of_Digital_Transformation_on_Workforce_Productivity> accessed 27 January 2026
