1050 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Table 2 Wage and earnings of Wage Male Female Total

workers in construction industry
(in Rs.) Regular monthly
Rural 11,876 17,848 11,983
Urban 17,356 15,910 17,271
Regular daily
Rural 389 585 393
Urban 569 522 566
Casual daily
Rural 316 196 303
Urban 380 279 371

Source: Estimation based on unit level PLFS data, 2018–2019

Kuldeep Manjhi (45-year-old), who hails from Jamui district of Bihar, works
as a mason at construction sites. He has been working in Delhi and Noida
for the past 15 years and moves from one construction site to another, some-
times with the same labour contractor and other times through an informal
contact. On an average, he earns Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month. Dur-
ing the first wave of COVID-19 crisis, he was working at a construction site
in Noida. After the lockdown was imposed, he and some other workers of his
village decided to stay at the construction site. After 10-15 days of lockdown,
they had barely money left to sustain themselves. Even the labour contractor
was also staying with them had no money left to stay longer. Therefore, they
decided to leave the site and return to their native villages. After three days
of cycling and hardship, they reached home. He stayed there for three months
and did some work to manage his livelihood but finally returned to Delhi in the
month of September 2020 mainly because he had taken an advance from the
contractor with whom he was working (Primary Survey by Author, Masoodpur
Village, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, June 30, 2021).

4 Assistance to Construction Workers During COVID-19

To help mitigate the crisis, two broad measures were implemented worldwide:
supporting jobs and incomes, and protecting workers at construction sites. Many
countries implemented short-time work schemes and provided wage subsidies and
income support to workers. Though these measures were not specific only to con-
struction workers, due to prevalence of informality in the construction sector it was
assumed that these policies would also impact construction workers (ILO, 2021b). It
was also expected that as major stakeholders, the government, employers, and work-
ers’ union will provide all possible help to workers. This study, however, focuses
only on government support to construction workers due to the unavailability of reli-
able information for other stakeholders.

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1051

The Indian government implemented a cash transfer programme along with in-
kind support to provide a kind of subsistence allowance and short-term relief to
construction workers during the crisis. Some states such as Bihar and Maharashtra
also provided in-kind support to construction workers and bore the (special) rail and
bus fares of migrant workers returning to native places. To provide cash assistance
to construction workers, MoLE under Section-60 of BOCW Act 1996 advised all
states and CWBs to frame a scheme under Section 22 (1) (h) of the Act for transfer
of funds in the accounts of construction workers through DBT mode from the cess
fund collected by CWBs (PIB, 2020a). According to MoLE advisory, about Rs. 520
billion was available as cess fund, which may be given to 35 million registered con-
struction workers.3
In response, most the states and union territories through CWBs provided cash
assistance to construction workers whose registrations were renewed, and bank
accounts were seeded with Aadhar. This, however, left out a significant number of
those who were not registered. So far, the government claims to have provided Rs.
56.18 billion cash assistance through DBT to 18.3 million workers during the first
wave and Rs. 17.9 billion disbursed to 12 million workers in the second wave in
April–May 2021 (Lok Sabha, 2021a, 2020; and, The Hindu, 2021).
However, analysis of the available statistics shows major discrepancies in data
reporting, state-wise variation, and inadequate cash distribution. It is found that only
around 52% of the total registered (34% of total estimated) workers have received
cash assistance—either one-time or on periodic basis (Table 3), which also implies
that a large number of workers could not get the benefit due to non-availability of
bank details of registered workers linked to Aadhar. Few states had not disbursed
even a single penny due to the absence of such record (MoLE, 2020).
With respect to PMGKY, the first progress report (April 2020) shows that 21.7
million construction workers have been benefited through DBT (PIB, 2020c). A
total of Rs. 30.7 billion cess funds were used for this purpose. The second progress
report (June 2020) shows that 23 million workers have benefitted with the use of Rs.
43.1 billion cess funds (PIB, 2020d).

3
Two issues are important to raise here. One, there are some other national- and state-level schemes and
cash assistance programmes for which construction workers are also eligible and it is found that during
the COVID-19 crisis, a significant proportion of construction workers have received assistance, but in the
present study those schemes are not evaluated. The paper strictly deals with the assistance accrued from
CWBs.
Second, the claims of DBT made by the respective CWBs can only be testified by the field survey of
construction workers. Some surveys such as Standard Workers Action Network (SWAN), 2020, and
Dalberg, 2020 conducted during first wave of COVID-19 provide an assessment of the situation of
migrant construction workers and welfare measures of the government. These surveys, however, have
not captured DBT through CWBs. Reports published by SWAN in April and May 2020 state that most
of the workers contacted them during the crisis were migrant construction workers. According to SWAN
Report of May 2020, more than 90 percent of total workers (16,863 stranded workers) did not receive
any cash transfer from the central and state governments. Dalberg (2020) conducted a large multi-round
survey of 47,000 low-income households in 15 states between April 5 and June 3, 2020. From the report,
it is found that a significant proportion of the households in the survey were construction workers and a
significant proportion of them have received entitlement schemes that offered top-ups or advance pay-
ments.

ISLE 13
 Table 3 Distribution of DBT to construction workers during wave-1 of COVID-19
1052

Major states Workers received assis- Total amount disbursed Per cent share of workers cash received against Per cent cash disbursement against
tance registered workers (As on 25–11–2019)# cess collection (As on 31–03–2019)*

13
(In million) % Share (Rs. billion) % Share

Andhra Pradesh 1.97 10.78 1.97 3.5 65.8 8.29

ISLE
Assam 0.22 1.21 0.44 0.8 89.0 5.06
Bihar 1.11 6.07 2.22 3.9 89.4 13.78
Chhattisgarh 0.20 1.11 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.00
Gujarat 0.37 2.05 0.37 0.7 57.2 1.78
Haryana 0.31 1.70 1.55 2.8 36.3 6.28
Himachal Pradesh 0.13 0.73 0.77 1.4 76.1 11.18
Jammu and Kashmir 0.17 0.93 0.68 1.2 49.7 9.56
Jharkhand 0.20 1.09 0.2 0.4 25.0 4.50
Karnataka 1.36 7.47 6.81 12.1 88.3 13.43
Kerala 0.69 3.80 0.69 1.2 45.5 3.58
Madhya Pradesh 0.89 4.89 1.78 3.2 28.8 6.59
Maharashtra 0.97 5.30 4.84 8.6 60.1 6.54
Odisha 1.84 10.07 2.76 4.9 67.7 15.05
Punjab 0.29 1.59 1.74 3.1 33.5 13.22
Rajasthan 0.76 4.16 18.0 32.0 34.1 80.00
Tamil Nadu 1.37 7.51 2.74 4.9 48.5 9.27
Telangana 0.83 4.55 1.25 2.2 70.6 10.29
Uttar Pradesh 1.82 10.00 3.54 6.3 37.6 7.43
Uttarakhand 0.23 1.25 0.46 0.8 98.2 18.19
West Bengal 2.20 12.05 2.2 3.9 70.9 10.28
Delhi 0.04 0.24 0.44 0.8 8.1 2.01
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067
 Table 3 (continued)
Major states Workers received assis- Total amount disbursed Per cent share of workers cash received against Per cent cash disbursement against
tance registered workers (As on 25–11–2019)# cess collection (As on 31–03–2019)*
(In million) % Share (Rs. billion) % Share

All India 18.24 100.00 56.18 100.0 52.3 11.31

Source: Ministry of Labour and Employment, Unstarred Question No. 8, Answered on 19–07–2021 in the Lok Sabha for col. 2 & col. 3. Information in col. 4 and col. 5
#
Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1284, Dated: 25–11–2019. *Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 278, Dated 24–06–2019
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

ISLE
1053

13
1054 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Contrary to the above reports, the Ministry of Finance in its press release dated
September 8, 2020, revealed that 18.2 million construction workers were given
cash assistance through DBT and a total of Rs. 49.87 billion had been spent (PIB,
2020e). In a reply submitted by the MoLE in Lok Sabha on September 19, 2020,
the Ministry mentioned that Rs. 49.8 billion have been spent in providing cash
through DBT and in-kind support to 18.2 million workers by the CWBs (Lok
Sabha, 2020). The anomaly with respect to the number of workers raises doubts
about the actual benefits to workers.
According to MoLE, the disbursement of Rs. 49.8 billion was in the form of
DBT (Rs. 37.9 billion) and various types of in-kind support (Rs. 11.9 billion). It
was also told that Bihar, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh had not been able to pro-
vide direct cash assistance (Rajya Sabha, 2020). However, in its current reply on
July 19, 2021, in the Lok Sabha, the Ministry stated that Bihar has given Rs. 2.22
billion to 1.1 million construction workers during the first wave of the crisis (Lok
Sabha, 2021a, 2020b). Bihar government also claimed to have provided direct
cash assistance of Rs. 1000 to all natives of Bihar stranded in other parts of the
country (Government of Bihar, 2021). The ministry also mentioned that two lakh
construction workers each in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have received cash or
in-kind benefits (Table 3). The major discrepancy is related to cash distribution in
Rajasthan. Earlier, in the reply by MoLE (September 19, 2020), it was shown that
2.23 million construction workers had received cash assistance through DBT and
a total of Rs. 5.58 billion was spent (Lok Sabha, 2020). The current reply, how-
ever, shows that only 7.6 lakh construction workers in Rajasthan have received
direct cash assistance, while the total cess fund distributed is around Rs. 18 bil-
lion (Table 3). The lack of coordination in information sharing between the states
and the centre and among the ministries has brought such misinformation, which
must have come in the way of providing effective support to construction workers.
At the state level, there are huge variations in terms of the total number of
workers who received the cash assistance and the total amount distributed
against the available cess fund (available as in 2019). In Assam, Bihar, Himachal
Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Telangana, Uttara-
khand, and Gujarat, more than 50% of the total registered workers received cash
assistance. In Delhi, where migrant construction workers faced a huge crisis, cash
assistance was provided to only 8% of the registered workers. Overall, 52.3% reg-
istered workers received cash through DBT. The disbursement of cash against
the available cess fund as in 2019 shows that Rajasthan distributed 80% of the
cess fund through DBT to 7.6 lakh construction workers, which is many times
higher than the national average of 11.3%. States like Uttarakhand (18%), Bihar
(13.7%), Odisha (15%), Karnataka (13.4%), Punjab (13.2%), Himachal Pradesh
(11%), Telangana (10%), and West Bengal (10%) spent in the range of 10–15% of
their available amount of cess funds. Total distribution of available cess fund was
two per cent or lower in Delhi and Gujarat. Kerala (7.0%), Tamil Nadu (13.1%),
and Uttar Pradesh (11.7%) had significantly higher share of construction GVA in
national GVA; however, these states together spent around 20% of the total cess
fund. Kerala spent only 3.6% of cess fund, whereas Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1055

Fig. 3 State-wise distribution of cash through DBT during the first and second wave of COVID-19.
Source: Compiled from COVID-19 labour market measures (India), ILO; CSE Azim Premji University
and 25th parliamentary standing committee report on labour 2021

spent 9.2% and 7.4%, respectively. Many of these states also have a higher share
in the total cess collection. (Details are discussed in Section 5.)
In general, majority of the states gave only one-time cash assistance of Rs. 1000
during the first wave of COVID-19. States like Delhi, Haryana, Goa, and Punjab
gave per worker assistance between Rs. 1000 and Rs 5000. States like Haryana and
Himachal Pradesh provided cash assistance on per month basis (Fig. 3).
The impact of the second wave has undisputedly been severe in terms of health
crisis. But the lockdown restrictions were not stringent during the second wave of
COVID-19; hence, the impact on construction workers was also partial. Moreover,
there was no interstate mobility restriction, provided the RT-PCR (real-time reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction) report of the traveller was negative. Despite
this, it was reported that lakhs of migrant workers left for their homes. To deal with
this crisis and also to meet the demand by the workers’ union to provide subsistence
allowance to workers during the closing down of construction activities, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi have given cash assis-
tance through DBT to registered workers (Table 4). Overall, 4.5% of the fund avail-
able in 2021 was distributed among 35.6% workers. Governments of Delhi and Kar-
nataka have claimed to have given Rs. 5000 per worker cash assistance, while Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala gave Rs. 1000 per worker assistance during
the second wave (see Fig. 3).
However, it is not specified whether migrant workers also benefited from the cash
transfer as in many states proof of domicile is required for registration. Although
the BOCW Act 1996 is the single largest provision for construction workers, many
states have not accommodated these migrants in the registration and welfare provi-
sions. In some states, rules are also not clear (Desai, 2017; Roy et al., 2017; and,
Srivastava et al., 2020). Though Model Welfare Framework (2018) and Mission

ISLE 13
 1056

13
ISLE
Table 4 DBT to construction workers during wave-2 of COVID-19, April–May 2021
States Workers given assistance Amount disbursed Per cent share of workers cash received against Per cent cash disbursement against
registered workers (As on 10–03–2021)# cess collection (As on 10–03–2021)#
(Million) % share (Rs. billion) % share

Karnataka 1.9 15.7 5.84 32.5 126.3 8.2

Kerala 0.7 5.6 0.7 3.9 34.8 12.4
Madhya Pradesh 1.2 9.7 1.2 6.7 95.0 10.5
Maharashtra 1.0 8.3 1.55 8.6 64.1 2.1
Punjab 0.6 4.7 0.87 4.9 100.3 13.0
Uttar Pradesh 6.7 54.1 6.7 37.3 118.2 12.7
Delhi 0.2 1.7 1.05 5.9 38.4 4.9
All India 12.4 100.0 17.95 100.0 35.6 4.5

Source: Ministry of Labour and Employment, Unstarred Question No. 8, Answered on 19–07–2021 in the Lok Sabha
#
Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1860, dated 10–03–2021
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1057

Mode Project (2020) of MoLE have mentioned that the domicile status of a worker
should not prevent the worker from registration and that only Aadhar and bank
details are necessary, whether the advice has been taken seriously and implemented
by states and CWBs is doubtful.
Apart from the direct cash benefit to informal construction workers, MoLE also
announced that it will provide 24% of wages as Employment Provident Fund benefit
to all workers earning less than Rs. 15,000 per month and working in any establish-
ment employing not more than 100 workers (Jha, 2020). But the scheme at large
does not appear to be helpful for construction workers due to the high informal-
ity and almost complete absence of social protection. The estimation from PLFS
2018–2019 data shows that not more than one per cent of construction workers
could benefit under this scheme.

5 Existing Issues and Challenges

Some basic issues of registration of workers and timely renewal and the collection
and utilisation of cess still exist. The state-wise analysis of registration of workers,
collection and utilisation of cess, and implementation of welfare schemes shows
poor implementation of these measures even after 25 years of enactment of BOCW
Act 19964 (Soundararajan, 2013; and Jha, 2020). Table 5 shows that during the first
wave of COVID-19, out of 54 million construction workers in 2018–2019, only 35
million workers were registered (as in 2019). Further, it can be noticed that the ratio
of accounts seeded with Aadhar vis-à-vis registered is only 51.6%.
The issue of registration got highlighted during the first wave of COVID-19.
Although the registration of workers has increased by 21% between 2011 and 2019
and overall 64% workers are registered with CWBs, there is still a huge variation
in the rate of registration across states. States like Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Odisha, Punjab, and Rajasthan have shown more than 50% compound
growth in registration between 2011 and 2019. But, the total registration of workers
was 30% and below in Jharkhand, Assam, and Bihar. Kerala (-1.3%) and Tamil Nadu
(3.7%) registered the lowest growth in the last 8 years. A more important issue, how-
ever, is related to the annual renewal of registered workers and linking of the bank
accounts of registered workers to Aadhar, so that welfare measures could be availed.
Information in Table 5 shows that around 9 million workers in 2020 were not able to
renew their registration.
The renewal of registration was relatively low in states like Delhi (7.3%), Mad-
hya Pradesh (28.9%), Punjab (34.8%), and Uttar Pradesh (39.5%). Even states like
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Karnataka, and Maharashtra where
live registration rate was higher, had low seeding of Aadhar with the bank account.
The related issue is faulty registration process as pointed out in the social audit of
BOCW Act in Delhi and Rajasthan sponsored by MoLE on the direction of the

4
As the BOCW Act has been subsumed into Social Security Code 2020, the provisions of the act would
depend on the enforcement of the code and its effective implementation.

ISLE 13