“Employers” in a Migrant Intensive Industry: Organised Construction in Thane, Maharashtra


As per Census of India 2011, the Mumbai urban agglomeration forms a major urban magnet for migrant construction workers. The construction sector comprises principally informal workers whose conditions of work are mainly regulated by three laws, viz. the Interstate Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Analysis suggests that these laws do not take into account the nature of informality in the sector. In addition to this, the amalgamation of these labour laws, with several others, into four labour codes further adds to the vulnerabilities of interstate migrant workers by not considering how vulnerabilities of migrant workers vary according to their sector and place of work. This paper explores the status of employers with respect to growing informalisation of workforce in the construction industry by taking a case study approach of an organised construction site at Thane, Maharashtra. Ninety-three per cent of the workers at the construction site were migrants, mostly from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Seventy-two per cent of the workers at the construction site responded that they got their wages from contractors, and in close to fifty-eight per cent of the cases, the contractor was the figure which helped them find work in the site. To understand the role of contractors better, the authors also conducted semi-structured interviews with fifteen contractors and three labour in-charges from the Thane construction site, during April and May 2020. Through these interviews, the authors found that the management sidestepped their responsibility of the workers by specifying that the contractor is the employer of the workers, while the contractors argued that they are the “recruiters” and not the employers. The paper thus tries to understand the term “employer” by comparing the definition of the employers in the three labour laws with our findings from surveys. Are there any potential areas of conflicts between the definitions? How does it get translated in the lives of workers, especially migrant workers? Do informal networks among migrant workers contribute in formulating the perception of the contractor as an employer? We do this by building up on fieldwork evidence of informality on large organised construction sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Availability of data and materials

All the data and material are available on India Migration Now’s website.


  1. Aggarwal, V., G. Solano, P. Singh, and S. Singh. 2020. The Integration of Interstate Migrants in India: A 7 State Policy Evaluation. International Migration Journal.

  2. Buckley, M., A. Zendel, J. Biggar, L. Frederiksen, and J. Wells. 2016. Migrant Work & Employment in the Construction Sector. International Labour Office, Sectoral Policies Department, Conditions of Work and Equality Department.

  3. Chadchan, J., and R. Shankar. 2012. An analysis of Urban Growth Trends in the Post-economic Reforms Period in India. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 1(1): 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, M., R. Madhav, and K. Sankaran. 2014. Legal Reforms for the Self-Employed: Three Urban Cases. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 50(1): 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chhachhi, A. 2014. Introduction: The ‘Labour Question’ in Contemporary Capitalism. Development and Change 45(5): 895–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dreze, J., and R. Khera. 2013. Rural Poverty and the Public Distribution System. Economic and Political Weekly 48: 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Government of India. 2011. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2011 Census of India. New Delhi.

  8. Government of India. 2019a. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code—As Introduced in Lok Sabha 2019. New Delhi.

  9. Government of India. 2019b. The Social Security Code—As Introduced in Lok Sabha 2019. New Delhi.

  10. Government of India. 2020. MHA Order Restricting Movement of Migrants and Strict Enforcement of Lockdown Measures. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  11. International Labour Organisation. 2012. Statistical update on employment in the informal economy ILODepartment of Statistics. June.

  12. Kabeer, N. 2009. Social Protection in South Asia: A Review. Manchester: Centre for Social Protection.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kirmani, S.S. 1988. The Construction Industry in Development: Issues and Options.

  14. Kumar, S., and M. Fernandez. 2015. Urbanisation-Construction-Migration Nexus in 5 cities in South Asia. LSE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a0895de5274a27b2000043/61261_Urbanisation-Construction-Migration-Nexus_Final-Report-5.pdf Accessed 13 August 2020.

  15. MoSPI. 2008. National Industrial Classification 2008. Central Statistical Organization, 1–193.

  16. NCEUS. 2007a. Report of the Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector. Government of India: National Commission for Enterprise in the Unorganised Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  17. NCEUS. 2007b. Report on Definition and Statistical Issues Relating to Informal Economy. Government of India: National Commission for Enterprise in the Unorganised Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Parliament of India. 1970. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, New Delhi.

  19. Parliament of India. 1979. Inter State Migrant Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979, New Delhi.

  20. Parliament of India. 1996. Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, New Delhi.

  21. Rawat, C., and P. Singh. 2020. How Construction Industry Got Away with Not Paying Workers in Lockdown. IndiaSpend.

  22. Roy, S. N., and M. Naik. 2017. Migrants in Construction Work: Evaluating Their Welfare Framework. Australian Government Statutory Agency.

  23. Sankaran, K. 2020. Realising Employer Liability for Informal Workers: Lessons from India. In The Informal Economy Revisited: Examining the Past, Envisioning the Future, ed. Martha Chen and Francoise Cerre, 226–230. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Saxena, K.P., and K.S. Yadav. 2013. Employment Intensity of Output: An Analysis of Non-Agriculture Sectors, Real Estate and Construction Sector. Institute of Applied Manpower Research Planning Commission, Government of India 19: 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sharma, A. N. 2006. Flexibility, Employment and Labour Market Reforms in India. Economic and Political Weekly 41(21).

  26. Shyam Sundar, K.R. 2005. Labour Flexibility Debate in India: A Comprehensive Review and Some Suggestions. Economic and Political Weekly 40(22/23): 2274–2285.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Soundararajan, V. 2013. Construction Workers: Amending the Law for More Safety. Economic and Political Weekly 48(23): 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Srivastava, R. 2005. Growing Precarity, Circular Migration, and the Lockdown in India. Indian Journal of Labour Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00260-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Srivastava, R. 2014. Changing Employment Conditions of the Indian Workforce and Implications for Decent Work. Global Labour Journal 3(1).

  30. Srivastava, R. 2016. Myth and reality of labour flexibility in India. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 59: 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-016-0048-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Srivastava, R., and R. Sutradhar. 2016. Migrating Out of Poverty?: A Study of Migrant Construction Sector Workers in India. Indian Institute for Human Development.

  32. Srivastava, R., and A.K. Jha. 2016. Capital and Labour Standards in the Organised Construction Industry in India: A Study Based on Fieldwork in the National Capital Region of Delhi. Second Report for the ESRC Project on Labour Conditions and the Working Poor in India and China. April.

  33. Srivastava, R. 2019. Emerging Dynamics of Labour Market Inequality in India: Migration, Informality, Segmentation and Social Discrimination. Indian Journal of Labour Economics 62(2): 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stranded Workers Action Network. 2020. 21 Days and Counting: COVID-19 Lockdown, Migrant Workers, and the Inadequacy of Welfare Measures in India.

  35. Wells, J. 2007. Informality in the Construction Sector in Developing Countries. Construction Management and Economics 25(1): 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600601339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wills, J. 2009. Subcontracted Employment and Its Challenge to Labor. Labor Studies Journal 34(4): 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X08324740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not Applicable.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priyansha Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, P., Rawat, C., Aggarwal, V. et al. “Employers” in a Migrant Intensive Industry: Organised Construction in Thane, Maharashtra. Ind. J. Labour Econ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00287-6

Download citation


  • Construction
  • Migrant workers
  • Employer
  • Contractor
  • Informal economy
  • Labour law
  • Welfare