Ans: 1) The International Labour Organization (ILO) was established in 1919 as a specialized

agency of the United Nations, with the primary objective of promoting social justice and
improving working conditions worldwide. The organization's structure is unique, in that it is
the only tripartite UN agency, with equal representation from governments, employers, and
workers. However, in recent years, the ILO has been accused of being slow-moving and out
of touch, with criticisms cantered around its bureaucracy and its failure to ensure that its
conventions and guidelines are taken seriously by member states.

One of the key areas where the ILO has been criticized is its lack of effectiveness in
enforcing labour standards. Although the organization has adopted a range of conventions
and recommendations on labour rights, including the right to freedom of association, the
elimination of child labour, and the promotion of decent work, its impact on improving
working conditions around the world has been limited. This is due in part to the fact that the
ILO has no enforcement powers and can only rely on member states to implement its
conventions and guidelines. Another area where the ILO has been accused of being out of
touch is in its response to the changing nature of work. With the rise of the gig economy,
remote work, and automation, traditional models of employment are becoming less
relevant, and workers' rights are increasingly being called into question. However, critics
argue that the ILO has been slow to respond to these changes, and that its conventions and
guidelines are outdated and inadequate for addressing the challenges of the modern
workplace. This has led some to question whether the ILO is still relevant in the 21st
century.
Critics have also accused the ILO of being too bureaucratic, with excessive red tape and a
cumbersome decision-making process. The organization's governing body is made up of
representatives from governments, employers, and workers, which can make it difficult to
reach consensus on key issues. This has led to delays in the adoption of new conventions
and recommendations, and a lack of agility in responding to emerging issues. Additionally,
the ILO's budget is heavily reliant on contributions from member states, which can make it
difficult to fund new initiatives and respond to changing needs.

Another area where the ILO has been criticized is in its governance structure, which some
argue is undemocratic and unrepresentative. Although the organization is designed to give
equal voice to governments, employers, and workers, the reality is that some member
states have more influence than others. For example, developed countries tend to have
more say in the organization's decision-making processes, while workers' groups from
developing countries may be marginalized. This has led to concerns about the legitimacy of
the organization's decisions and the extent to which it truly represents the interests of all its
stakeholders.
One of the main areas where the ILO has been criticized is its lack of effectiveness in
enforcing labour standards. Although the organization has adopted a range of conventions
and recommendations on labour rights, including the right to freedom of association, the
elimination of child labour, and the promotion of decent work, its impact on improving
working conditions around the world has been limited. This is due in part to the fact that the
ILO has no enforcement powers and can only rely on member states to implement its
conventions and guidelines. However, even where member states have ratified ILO
conventions, there have been concerns about the organization's ability to hold them
accountable for violations.

One of the reasons for this is that the ILO's supervisory system is complex and cumbersome,
involving various committees, experts, and procedures. This can make it difficult to identify
and address labour violations in a timely and effective manner. In addition, the ILO's
reporting mechanisms rely heavily on self-reporting by member states, which can be
unreliable and may not provide a complete picture of labour conditions in each country.
Moreover, the ILO's complaints mechanism, while an important tool for workers and trade
unions, can be slow and costly, and may not provide effective remedies for labour
violations.

Another area where the ILO has been accused of being out of touch is in its response to the
changing nature of work. With the rise of the gig economy, remote work, and automation,
traditional models of employment are becoming less relevant, and workers' rights are
increasingly being called into question. However, critics argue that the ILO has been slow to
respond to these changes, and that its conventions and guidelines are outdated and
inadequate for addressing the challenges of the modern workplace. One of the reasons for
this is that the ILO's standard-setting process can be slow and bureaucratic and may not
keep pace with emerging trends in the world of work. In addition, the organization's
governance structure, which gives equal voice to governments, employers, and workers, can
make it difficult to reach consensus on key issues. This can result in watered-down
standards and guidelines that do not adequately address the needs of workers in the new
world of work. Moreover, the ILO's funding model, which relies heavily on contributions
from member states, can make it difficult to fund new initiatives and respond to changing
needs.
Moreover, the ILO has been criticized for its lack of engagement with civil society
organizations and other non-state actors. Although the organization. In conclusion, while
the ILO has played an important role in promoting social justice and improving working
conditions around the world, it has been criticized in recent years for being slow-moving,
out of touch, and overly bureaucratic. Critics have pointed to a range of issues, including the
organization's lack of effectiveness in enforcing labour standards, its failure to adapt to the
changing nature of work, its cumbersome decision-making process, and its undemocratic
governance structure. If the ILO is to remain relevant in the 21st century, it will need to
address these criticisms and find new ways to promote social justice and improve working
conditions around the world.

Ans: 2) The process of collective bargaining is a crucial element of industrial relations, as it

provides a mechanism for workers to negotiate with their employers on issues related to
wages, benefits, working conditions, and other employment-related matters. However, the
presence of many unions within an establishment can often hinder the process of collective
bargaining, as it becomes difficult to reach a settlement with all of them. In this essay, I will
discuss the recommendations made by the National Commission of Labor (NCL) in
improving the effectiveness of collective bargaining in such situations.

The NCL was established in 1966 with the aim of reviewing and making recommendations
on various aspects of labour policy and legislation in India. In its report, the NCL highlighted
the need for effective collective bargaining in promoting harmonious industrial relations and
recommended several measures to improve its effectiveness. One of the key
recommendations made by the NCL was the need to reduce the number of unions in an
establishment to a manageable level. The NCL suggested that this could be achieved
through the process of registration and recognition of unions, which would require unions
to meet certain eligibility criteria and represent a minimum number of workers.

Another recommendation made by the NCL was the need to promote industrial democracy
in the workplace. This involves giving workers a greater say in the management of the
establishment, including the negotiation and implementation of collective agreements. The
NCL suggested that this could be achieved through the formation of joint management
councils, which would bring together representatives of workers, employers, and the
government to discuss and resolve workplace issues.
The NCL also recommended the need for greater transparency and accountability in the
process of collective bargaining. This involves ensuring that negotiations are conducted in a
fair and open manner, with both parties having access to relevant information and the
opportunity to present their views. The NCL suggested that this could be achieved using
conciliation and mediation services, which would provide a neutral third party to help
facilitate negotiations and resolve disputes.
Another key recommendation made by the NCL was the need to promote collective
bargaining at the industry level. This involves bringing together representatives of different
establishments within an industry to negotiate collective agreements that cover all workers
in the industry. The NCL suggested that this could be achieved through the formation of
industry-level associations, which would provide a platform for collective bargaining and
help to ensure that workers in the industry are treated fairly and equitably.
Finally, the NCL emphasized the need for effective implementation and enforcement of
collective agreements. This involves ensuring that both parties adhere to the terms of the
agreement and that there are adequate mechanisms in place to address violations. The NCL
suggested that this could be achieved through the establishment of a grievance redressal
mechanism, which would provide a forum for workers to raise complaints and seek
redressal.
In its report, the NCL made several recommendations for improving the effectiveness of
collective bargaining in such situations, including the following:

1. Consolidation of unions: The NCL recommended that unions should be encouraged

to consolidate and form larger, more representative organizations. This would help
to reduce the number of unions within an establishment and make collective
 bargaining more effective. The NCL suggested that this could be achieved through
incentives such as preferential recognition or financial support for mergers.
2. Simplification of the recognition process: The NCL recommended that the process for
recognizing unions should be simplified and made more transparent. This would help
to reduce the number of unions within an establishment and make it easier to reach
a settlement through collective bargaining. The NCL suggested that this could be
achieved by setting clear criteria for recognition, such as minimum membership
levels or a minimum percentage of the workforce.
3. Mediation and conciliation: The NCL recommended that mediation and conciliation
should be used more frequently in the collective bargaining process. This would help
to resolve disputes between unions and employers and reduce the number of unions
within an establishment. The NCL suggested that this could be achieved by
strengthening the role of the labour department and setting up a specialized
conciliation machinery.
4. Formation of joint negotiating bodies: The NCL recommended that joint negotiating
bodies should be formed to represent all the unions within an establishment. This
would help to ensure that all unions have a say in the collective bargaining process
and reduce the number of unions involved in negotiations. The NCL suggested that
this could be achieved through voluntary agreements between unions and
employers, or through legislative provisions.
5. Capacity building of unions: The NCL recommended that unions should be provided
with training and capacity building programs to improve their negotiating skills and
knowledge of labour laws. This would help to ensure that unions are better
equipped to represent their members in the collective bargaining process and
reduce the number of unions involved in negotiations. The NCL suggested that this
could be achieved through government-funded training programs or through
partnerships with civil society organizations.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of collective bargaining can be hampered when there are
many unions within an establishment. The National Commission of Labor has made several
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of collective bargaining in such situations,
including consolidation of unions, simplification of the recognition process, mediation and
conciliation, formation of joint negotiating bodies, and capacity building of unions. These
recommendations could help to reduce the number of unions involved in negotiations and
ensure that collective bargaining is more effective in improving the working conditions of
workers.

Ans 3 a) Moonlighting or working for another business while being a permanent employee
of another, can raise ethical concerns depending on the circumstances. In some cases,
moonlighting can be viewed as a breach of contract or a conflict of interest.
Firstly, moonlighting can potentially create a conflict of interest between the two
employers. For example, if an employee of a software company also works part-time for a
rival software company, they may be privy to sensitive information from both companies
that could be used to benefit one over the other. This could harm the interests of one or
both employers and is generally not considered ethical.
Secondly, moonlighting can potentially create issues around time management and
productivity. If an employee is already working full-time for one employer, taking on
additional work could compromise their ability to meet their existing responsibilities. This
could lead to decreased productivity, missed deadlines, and reduced quality of work, which
could harm the employer and their clients.

One ethical issue that arises from moonlighting is the potential for an employee to use their
position in one company to benefit the other. For example, an employee who works for a
financial company may use their access to confidential financial information to benefit their
side business. This can lead to a breach of trust and potentially harm the company that the
employee is working for.
Another ethical issue that can arise from moonlighting is the impact it may have on the
employee's performance at their primary job. Moonlighting can be demanding and can take
up a significant amount of an employee's time and energy, potentially leading to decreased
productivity, burnout, or exhaustion. This can negatively impact their primary job and their
colleagues.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where moonlighting is not unethical. For
example, if an employee is working for a company that only requires them to work part-
time and they are looking for additional work, moonlighting can provide them with an
opportunity to earn more money and gain additional experience in their field. Additionally,
if the employee's side business is not in competition with their primary employer and does
not interfere with their work responsibilities, moonlighting may not be an ethical concern.
In this case, it's important for the employee to ensure that they are not violating any
agreements or policies with their primary employer, such as non-compete clauses or
confidentiality agreements.
Ultimately, the ethics of moonlighting depend on the specific circumstances of the situation.
Employers and employees should carefully consider any potential conflicts of interest,
breach of trust, or impact on performance that may arise from moonlighting. It's important
for employers to have clear policies regarding moonlighting to avoid any misunderstandings
or disputes.

Ans 3 b) Moonlighting is the practice of working for another business while being employed
full-time by another, which can raise several legal issues related to employment and labour
law. The specific coverage of labour laws will depend on the jurisdiction and the specific
laws that apply in that location. However, some common issues that may arise include:

• Conflict of interest: Moonlighting can create conflicts of interest between the

employee's primary job and the secondary job. For example, if an employee works as
a software developer for one company and moonlights as a software developer for a
competitor, this may be seen as a conflict of interest.
 • Overtime and rest breaks: If an employee work for two different employers, they
may be subject to different overtime and rest break requirements. In some cases,
moonlighting may result in the employee working more than the legal limit of hours,
which could result in wage and hour violations.
• Intellectual property: If an employee works for a company in a particular industry
and moonlights for a competitor, there may be concerns about intellectual property
theft or the sharing of confidential information. Employees may be subject to non-
disclosure agreements or non-compete clauses that restrict their ability to work for a
competitor.
• Tax obligations: Employees who moonlight may be required to pay taxes on the
additional income earned from their secondary job. Failure to report this income
could result in tax penalties.
• Workers' compensation: In the event of an injury sustained while moonlighting, the
employer of the primary job may not be liable for workers' compensation benefits.
The employee may need to seek benefits from the secondary employer or through
their own health insurance.
• Overall, it is important for employees to be aware of the potential legal issues
surrounding moonlighting and to consult with an attorney or HR representative if
they have any concerns. Additionally, employers may want to consider implementing
clear policies and procedures regarding moonlighting to ensure that employees are
not engaging in activities that could be detrimental to the company or in violation of
labour laws.

• Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code: This code will cover all
mines and docks and all business establishments and factories employing a minimum
of 10 workers, and it prescribes the standards to be followed by companies to
ensure the safety and health of employees and workers. Companies will have to
provide certain benefits to employees, such as providing free annual health
examinations and issuing a letter of appointment to all employees.

Conclusion
The new labour codes retain the spirit and broad coverage of existing labour laws, so
companies’ existing employment policies may not need significant revision. However, the
implementation of material aspects of the new labour codes is also subject to directions
issued by the government from time to time; this casts a level of uncertainty into the
requirements and practices companies will be required to follow – including companies that
were not directly under the purview of all existing labour laws (e.g., aggregators).