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

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-021-00348-4

ARTICLE

Vulnerability of Construction Workers During COVID‑19:

Tracking Welfare Responses and Challenges

Ajit Jha1

Accepted: 24 September 2021 / Published online: 1 November 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Society of Labour Economics 2021

Abstract
This paper takes stock of the cash assistance provided by the government to con-
struction workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the role of the state construc-
tion welfare board has been crucial, some existing issues related to boards and chal-
lenges emerged during the crisis have also been discussed. Results show that cash
benefit through direct benefit transfer has partially helped workers to overcome their
financial distress, but 65% workers did not receive any benefit due to various issues
related to registration and seeding of bank accounts with Aadhar. Sluggish process
of registration has been a major issue which is being addressed by different mecha-
nisms, but results would be known later. Proper cess collection and its utilisation is
still an important issue as 61% of the cess collected in 2019 was not utilised. Even
during the crisis, 15% cess was used at most in direct benefit transfer and in-kind
(food distribution) support. Majority of the states are running a number of welfare
schemes, but the coverage is poor despite proper guidelines set under the Model
Welfare Framework of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The objectives of
Mission Mode Projects are appreciable, but the outcomes are not known even after
the completion of deadlines. Above all, the emerging issues of maintaining health
and hygiene at worksite and living place and getting vaccinated are major challenges
for the sustainability of the construction sector. Hence, a collective effort of the gov-
ernment, employers, and workers’ organisations is the need of the hour.

Keywords COVID-19 · Construction · Migration · Workers · Direct benefit transfer

1 Introduction

The impact of COVID-19 on labour market is deep and much severe than the previ-
ous economic crises (Breman, 2020; Jha and Kumar, 2020). Globally, 81% workers
borne the brunt of the pandemic, 225 million jobs were been lost, and the global

* Ajit Jha
[email protected]
1
Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, India

ISLE 13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1044 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

labour income has declined by 8.3% in the year 2020 (ILO, 2021a). The destruction
in jobs and labour income has disproportionally affected the young, women, unpro-
tected, disadvantaged, and migrant workers across the world (ILO 2020a, 2021a).
In many economies, the young labourers who were already battling (high) unem-
ployment before the pandemic are now vulnerable due to the falling labour demand
during the crisis. Sectors where women were fairly represented have been hit hard;
unprotected workers are disproportionally affected because of lack of social security
benefits such as provision of paid or sick leave. The plight of the poor and vulner-
able migrant workers has become visible in this period. They face multiple chal-
lenges including not getting their due wages from their employers, loss of employ-
ment, inability to access new jobs, and inability to pay accommodation rent (ILO,
2020a, 2021a; Breman, 2020; Srivastava, 2021; Addison et al., 2020; Rajan et al.,
2020; Walter, 2020).
The crisis in India came in the backdrop of the pre-existing labour market fragili-
ties reflected in higher informality, poor social protection, and high unemployment
rate (Srivastava, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Kapoor, 2020). According to the Periodic
Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2018–2019 data, around 90% of the total workforce in
India is informal, working without a proper job contract and social security. These
workers living in the countryside and in slums in mega-cities were already work-
ing in poor conditions and living in filthy environment (Breman, 2020), and the
disruption in economic activity and mobility restriction during lockdowns further
increased their vulnerability. The impact was felt most by the migrant workers (sea-
sonal and circular) working in the informal sector (Srivastava et al., 2020; Rajan
et al., 2020; Srivastava, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2021). According to an estimate,
in the urban labour market 51% workers are migrants and a significant proportion
(111 million in 2017–2018) comprises circular migrant workers (Srivastava, 2020a,
2020b, 2020c). Due to social fragmentation, unstable accommodation, poor entitle-
ments, and lack of organisational and political voice, they have a weak foothold in
the urban labour market (Srivastava, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Breman, 2020; and APU,
2021). Even during the second wave in mid-April and May 2021, lakhs of circular
migrants returned home in anticipation of the spread of the virus and due to lock-
downs in major part of the country. According to a report by the Ministry of Labour
and Employment (MoLE), around 1.3 million workers left Delhi during mid-April
and May 2021 (Hindustan Times, July 2, 2021). A cessation of economic activity
has had severe impact on employment and income. Estimation based on Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) CPHS data on employment showed that more
than 100 million people lost jobs during first wave in March–April 2020. Though
jobs recovered sharply after unlocking of economic activities, overall annual
employment in 2020–2021 was below the pre-COVID level. There is an estimate
that mobility restriction led to the 17% fall in monthly income during the first wave
of COVID-19 (APU, 2021). Surveys (Kesar et al., 2020; Dalberg, 2020) conducted
during the first wave of COVID-19 and anecdotal evidence collected also suggest
that there would have been significant income losses especially to informal workers
(The Hindu, 2021).
The crisis affected every section and sector of the economy albeit at different
levels and made the role of the government paramount. Protection of health and

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1045

economic support both at the demand and the supply side of the economy were the
immediate goals suggested to arrest the fallout of the crisis (ILO, 2020a). Govern-
ments across the globe adopted containment and economic support measures such
as additional spending, temporary tax cut, cash and in-kind support, unemployment
benefits, wage subsidies, and other kinds of liquidity support measures.
The central government in India adopted a graded pre-emptive and pro-active
strategy consisting of containment measures, fiscal support, and financial and struc-
tural reforms to combat COVID-19. The government introduced phase-wise demand
stimulus with prior focus on measures to provide a cushion for the poor and vulner-
able section of the society and to the small business sectors. Some of these measures
included food grain distribution programme, direct cash transfer to individuals, and
cash support to registered construction workers (GOI, 2021). On March 26, 2020,
the Ministry of Finance announced a Rs. 1.7 trillion packages under Pradhan Man-
tri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) covering all of the above welfare measures for
targeted groups (PIB, 2020a). Later a special economic package called Aatmanirb-
har Bharat Package was launched as a part of the national economic response to
COVID-19 pandemic.
An evaluation of PMGKY based on large-scale CMIE survey of households
shows that between May and August 2020, more than 87% of the beneficiaries
reported receiving at least one benefit—food. Across the country, nearly 40% of the
households received cash transfers (Bhattacharya and Roy, 2021). However, objec-
tions have been raised regarding the way lockdown imposed and PMGKY package
was announced and implemented. The support package was found to be inadequate
and poorly targeted (Breman, 2020; Srivastava, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Rajan et al.,
2020 and Jha & Kumar, 2021).
In the above context of informality, migrant crisis, and welfare responses of
the government, the present paper tries to elucidate the impact of the crisis on the
construction workers in India. It is important to note that informality is a norm in
the construction sector as both enterprises and workers are highly informal (Wells,
2007). Studies (Mehrotra and Giri, 2019; Kapoor, 2019; and, Srivastava, 2020a,
2020b, 2020c) have shown that there is a large presence of micro- and informal
enterprises (99.1%), informal workers (92.5%), and circular migrant workers (26.4
million) in India’s construction sector. During the COVID-19 crisis, their finan-
cial and occupational conditions became highly deplorable. Migrant construction
workers faced significant economic hardship due to loss of jobs and unhygienic
and improper living conditions in which maintaining social distancing may not be
possible (ILO, 2021b). A risk analysis of different sectors affected from COVID-
19 in India also showed that along with services, construction has been the worst
affected sector (GOI, 2021). A drastic decline in construction gross value added
(GVA) (−49.5%) was noticed in the first quarter (April–June) of 2020–2021. In
fact, the contraction in GVA was highest among all sectors. Compared to the per-
centage change in GVA in 2019–2020 (1.0%), the change in construction GVA in
2020–2021 is reported to be (−)8.6% (MOSPI, 2021). The decline in employment
was also very sharp. As per CMIE data on employment, the year-over-year (YOY)
change in construction employment was (−)55.4% in the first quarter of 2020–2021.
In absolute terms, 34 million workers lost their jobs in the first quarter. Overall,

ISLE 13
1046 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

around 3 million construction workers lost their jobs in 2020–2021 as compared to

2019–2020.
On the other side, some intervention measures like the gradual easing of the
lockdown and mobility restrictions have helped the sector to turn upward and the
response of the government to provide direct cash assistance and other in-kind sup-
port to workers has been noticeable, but a detailed outcome is a matter of evalua-
tion. Further, occupational safety, health and hygiene, proper accommodation, social
security benefits, and infection prevention measures have become major issues for
construction workers because of the physical intensive nature of the industry (Lin-
gard et al., 2021).
Given this background, the study finds it appropriate to discuss the nature of
employment and working conditions of construction workers and the response of the
government both at union and the state levels to mitigate their vulnerabilities. Exist-
ing issues and future challenges in the given regulatory framework for construction
workers have also been discussed. The paper has two objectives. One, to document
and analyse the way the construction workers received assistance by the union and
state governments to compensate for their loss of earnings due to the lockdowns
during the first and second waves of COVID-19. And two, to identify issues related
to construction workers that already existed and those that emerged during the crisis
and how they can be dealt with.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Following the introductory section, the
data and methods used in the study are covered in Section 2. Section 3 discusses
the nature of employment and working conditions in the construction industry. The
policy response of the central and state governments is analysed in Section 4 and
in Section 5, and exiting issues and future challenges are discussed. Section 6 con-
cludes with a discussion.

2 Data and Methods

A major part of the analysis is based on secondary data. Information relating to

the total number of workers, employment status, job contract, and social security
is based on the estimation of unit-level data of Employment and Unemployment
Round (2011–2012) of NSSO and PLFS 2018–2019. State-wise data on registration
of workers, collection, and spending of cess have been compiled from the unstarred
and starred questions asked of MoLE and other concerned ministries during Rajya
Sabha and Lok Sabha sessions. Though the data given by MoLE and other minis-
tries on registration of workers and cess collection are not error free, they are the
only reliable source to get state-level information on such variables. The GVA data
at 2011–2012 prices at all India level and state-wise have been taken from the Min-
istry of Statistics and Implementation Programme (MOSPI).
Generally, the estimation of number of workers is done for the age group 15–59.
But in this paper, estimation of workers is done for the age group of 18–60 years to
bring them at par with the way registered workers are counted. Under Section-12
of Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulations of Employment and
Conditions of Services) Act 1996 (hereinafter BOCW Act), a worker is eligible for

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1047

registration if he/she has completed 18 years of age but has not completed 60 years
of age. Estimation of informal workers is based on two criteria: (a) job contract and
(b) number of workers present in an enterprise.
To substantiate the analysis based on secondary data, case studies of some work-
ers doing construction and other works have also been reported.

3 Nature of Workforce in the Construction Industry

Heterogeneity is an inherent characteristic of the construction industry because of

the discrete nature of its products. The industry is sensitive to economic cycles,
and informality is present in every aspect of it (Loop, 1996; Wells, 2007; and,
ILO, 2021b). Subcontracting of both capital and labour is a practice, and the chain
increases with the nature and scale of operation (Srivastava and Jha, 2016; Jha,
2017). Labour is an important factor of production, and the sector provides a sig-
nificant source of direct employment to less educated or low-skilled and migrant
workers having origin in rural areas (Loop, 1996). But the nature of employment
is mostly transitory, and the nature of the workforce is highly informal. The indus-
try is highly dependent on migrant workers as they are mobile in nature. They are
also flexible and expandable in terms of economic delivery (Buckley et al., 2016). It
has also been observed that the proportion of migrant workers varies with the scale
and location of the construction activity, and they are mostly hired through labour
contractors (Loop, 1996; Srivastava and Jha, 2016; and, Jha, 2017). In fact, migrant
labour has gained centrality in the construction sector, both because of the spatial
disconnect between labour supply and demand, and because of the labour recruit-
ment system (Srivastava, 2018). Long-distance migrants are preferred as they can be
hired on relatively lower wages (Roy et al., 2017; and, Loop, 1996).
A true resemblance of these characteristics can be observed in Indian construc-
tion industry. Construction in India is a major labour-intensive sector as it contrib-
utes over 12% share in total employment. As compared to 89.6% informal workers
in India in 2018–2019, in construction, 92.7% workers were informal.1 The share of
wage workers (88.8%) and casual workers (83%) was also very high (Fig. 1).
Around 97% workers had no formal contract with their employers (Fig. 2). There
is also not much difference between formal and informal workers in terms of receiv-
ing social security benefits. Only 2.5% (formal and informal) workers received some
kinds of social security benefits (Table 1). Both primary and secondary data analysis
shows that over 90% workers in construction had received secondary education or
below and more than 80% had no formal training. Although low level of education
and informal skill acquisition is common in the construction industry, it makes them
highly vulnerable to layoffs (Jha, 2017; and, Kapoor, 2020).
Migration has been a key source of labour employment in the construction sector
in India. Based on Census 2001 data, out of 14.6 million construction workers, 4.9
million were migrants and 10% of non-agricultural internal migrants were employed

1
Globally, 75.7 percent workers are in informal employment (ILO, 2020b).

ISLE 13
1048 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Wage Workers 88.8

48.3

Casual Workers 83.1

23.6

5.7 Construction
Regular Wage 24.7 Overall

Self-employed 11.2
51.7

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Source: Estimation Based on PLFS, 2018-19

Fig. 1  Pre-COVID-19 labour market structure (in per cent). Source: Estimation based on PLFS, 2018–
2019

Construction Overall

Contract (>=3)

Contract (>=1 &

<=3)

Contract (<=1)

No Contract

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

Source: Estimation Based on PLFS, 2018-19

Fig. 2  Availability of written job contracts (in years). Source: Estimation based on PLFS, 2018–2019

Table 1  Status of social security benefits in 2018–2019

Social security All sectors Construction
Total workers Informal workers Total workers Informal workers

Any benefits 26.5 12.1 2.5 1.4

No benefits 65.9 78.9 87.5 88.1
Not known 7.6 9.1 10.0 10.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Estimation based on PLFS, 2018–2019

in the construction sector (Roy et al., 2017). But the major issue with Census data
is that it does not capture the short-term seasonal and circular migrants whose num-
bers are very significant in the construction sector (Srivastava, 2014, 2018). Also,

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1049

sector-specific migration data collected in Census 2011 are not yet released. Con-
struction is the largest employer of interstate short-term migrant workers. Around
36% of all short-term migrants (circular) are engaged in construction activity
(Srivastava, 2018). The total number of circular migrants in construction activity
increased to 26.4 million in 2017–2018 from 24.9 million in 2011–2012 (Srivastava,
2020a, 2020b, 2020c). A few empirical studies (Srivastava and Jha, 2016; Jha, 2017)
based on the primary survey of construction workers conducted in 2012–2013 in
Delhi NCR also show that more than 90% of the workers doing work on large con-
struction sites were seasonal and circular migrants, and majority of them hail from
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. They come from rural areas through labour
suppliers on a fixed wage rate time period and work for two to six months in a spell.
The circular nature of migration can also be understood from the case history of a
construction worker who is presently working in a building construction project in
Vasant Kunj area of Delhi.
Hanshul2 is a 35-year-old manual worker who hails from Malda district of
West Bengal. He is landless and there are six members in his family. To sus-
tain his family, he and his wife have to work as farm labour and sometimes as
non-farm labour. For the past five years, he is working for a munshi (middle-
man) who belongs to his native district Malda. Twenty other people from his
village are also working with him as manual workers. According to Hanshul,
he comes to Delhi twice in a year for work. Each time he stays for two months
and then goes back to his native place where he remains for the next eight
months of the year working for either local farmers or in public works… (Pri-
mary Survey by Author, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, June 29, 2021).
Some of the representative surveys of workers conducted during the COVID-19
crisis have documented the miseries faced by migrant workers due to loss of jobs,
non-payment of wages, shutting down of temporary accommodation, and denial of
journey allowances. An important survey conducted by Self Employed Women’s
Association (SEWA) of 2,668 construction workers, street vendors, and domestic
workers in five cities (Delhi, Lucknow, Ranchi, Ahmadabad, and Trivandrum) found
a huge drop in household income during the pandemic (APU, 2021). According to
this survey, 78% construction workers reported zero income due to the lockdown.
Estimation of wages from PLFS 2018–2019 data and comparing it with the lock-
down period indicates that these workers suffered huge wage loss. As per the PLFS
2018–2019 data, on an average, a casual worker earned Rs. 371 nominal wage per
day in urban areas, whereas a regular worker earned Rs. 566 per day. As the first
lockdown was imposed for 21 days, it can be estimated that the loss to casual worker
and regular worker was Rs. 8000 and Rs. 12,000, respectively (Table 2).
The miseries that the migrant construction workers faced can also be gauged
from the case history of one of the respondents:

2
The name is only indicative. The actual name of the respondent has been changed to maintain anonym-
ity.

ISLE 13
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
 Table 5  State-wise details of estimated and registered workers, their growth, and key ratios
1058

Major states Estimated workers Registered CAGR (2019 Live registered Account seeded with Ratios (in %)
workers over 2011) workers (million) Aadhar (million)

13
(Million) (Million)

2011–2012 2018–2019 2011 2019 2020 2020 (5/2) (6/3) (8/6) (9/8)

ISLE
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Andhra Pradesh 3.1 2.3 0.9 3.0 16.5 2.0 1.97 28.8 129.4 65.8 100.0
Assam 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.2 62.6 0.3 0.27 0.8 18.8 108.5 100.0
Bihar 2.8 4.7 0.0 1.2 68.0 1.3 0.00 0.7 26.5 108.3 0.0
Chhattisgarh 0.8 1.2 0.1 1.9 53.7 1.9 0.00 8.2 164.6 97.5 0.0
Gujarat 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.7 38.3 0.6 0.35 4.1 47.8 97.5 54.5
Haryana 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.9 23.7 0.5 0.35 14.1 72.7 59.3 69.0
Himachal Pradesh 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 101.9 0.1 0.11 0.1 40.0 75.0 87.3
Jammu and Kashmir 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 - 0.2 0.16 0.0 42.1 51.6 88.4
Jharkhand 1.9 2.6 0.0 0.8 62.6 1.0 0.00 0.9 30.8 121.7 0.0
Karnataka 1.5 2.1 0.1 1.5 33.8 2.2 1.36 10.0 74.5 141.4 62.5
Kerala 2.0 2.2 1.7 1.5 -1.3 1.5 0.45 84.2 68.8 99.4 29.9
Madhya Pradesh 3.4 3.8 1.7 3.1 7.7 0.9 0.89 50.2 82.3 28.9 99.6
Maharashtra 2.9 3.0 0.0 1.6 - 1.3 0.82 0.0 54.2 82.6 61.8
Odisha 1.9 3.0 0.1 2.7 60.8 2.1 2.08 3.1 89.5 76.7 100.0
Punjab 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.9 50.6 0.3 0.29 2.5 62.2 34.8 95.7
Rajasthan 4.9 3.3 0.1 2.2 59.5 2.3 2.23 1.1 67.2 105.4 95.1
Tamil Nadu 3.8 4.1 2.1 2.8 3.7 1.7 1.37 55.9 68.6 59.4 81.5
Telangana 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 - 0.8 0.83 - 94.3 70.6 100.0
Uttar Pradesh 8.0 8.7 0.1 4.9 55.3 1.9 1.81 1.8 56.0 39.5 94.2
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067
 Table 5  (continued)
Major states Estimated workers Registered CAGR (2019 Live registered Account seeded with Ratios (in %)
workers over 2011) workers (million) Aadhar (million)

(Million) (Million)

2011–2012 2018–2019 2011 2019 2020 2020 (5/2) (6/3) (8/6) (9/8)
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Uttarakhand 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 87.9 0.2 0.23 0.4 58.7 101.5 96.0
West Bengal 2.6 3.9 0.3 3.1 33.2 2.2 2.20 12.0 78.8 70.9 100.0
Delhi 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.5 37.7 0.0 0.04 18.4 142.3 7.3 100.0
All India 47.0 54.1 7.5 34.9 21.1 25.8 18.02 16.1 64.4 73.9 69.9

Source: Estimation of no. of workers in col. 2 and col. 3 is, respectively, based on unit record data of Employment and Unemployment Survey of NSSO 2011–2012 and
PLFS 2018–2019. Data in col. 5 are from Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 272, March 2012, and data in col. 6 are from Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1284,
November 2019. Data in col. 8 and col. 9 are from D.O.No.Z-20012/09/2020-BOCW, July 14, 2020, Ministry of Labour and Employment, GOI
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

ISLE
1059

13
1060 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Supreme Court (MoLE, 2018a, 2020). In Delhi, organisations responsible for the
social audit found instances of selective registration, non-updation of identity cards,
and enrolment of non-construction workers as beneficiaries. The social audit report
conducted by Aajeevika Bureau in Salumbar block of Udaipur district in Rajasthan
in 2018 found that out of 1474 individuals, 39% workers were not engaged in con-
struction activities. As noticed in the case study analysis, the prevalence of the same
may have risen during COVID-19. In a case study of workers, it is found that many
workers managed to get themselves registered with CWB in Delhi while doing some
other kind of casual work. This issue is highlighted in the narrative of one of the
respondents:
Thirty-five year old Mamta Devi, a native of Madhubani district of Bihar, lives
in a notified slum in Rangpuri of South-West district in Delhi. She is a domes-
tic worker in a society located in Vasant Kunj area in Delhi. While enquir-
ing about COVID-19 related effects on her health and income and if any kind
of relief has been received by the government, she informed having received
Rs. 5000 in her bank account during the first wave of COVID-19. When asked
about the specific type and mode of assistance, she revealed that she has a
labour card issued by the Delhi Building and Other Construction Welfare
Board. She managed to get this card last year through her relatives from a
labour camp near Tihar jail in Hari Nagar. She did not get the benefit during
second wave as her labour card was not renewed. According to her, there are
many such workers in the slum who have labour cards but are doing domestic
and other kinds of non-construction jobs (Primary Survey by Author, Rang-
puri Slum, Mahipalpur, Delhi, June 16, 2021).
Cess collection and its optimum utilisation is another point of discussion. In this
regard, several directions have been given by the Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Labour and by the Supreme Court to strengthen the mechanism of cess collection
and its proper utilisation for the welfare of workers (Jha, 2020). Some progress in
terms of spending has been observed, but still utilisation ratio is very low (Table 6).
The MoLE has also recognised that welfare cess levied and collected to promote
welfare and social security is underutilised (MoLE, 2020). At the aggregate level,
utilisation ratio of cess has significantly increased in the last 8 years, but still over
60% of cess collected is found to be unutilised in 2019. Between 2019 and 2020,
around Rs. 113.7 billion cess was collected, but only Rs. 27.8 billion was spent.
Even during the first wave of COVID-19, only 11% cess was used in DBT to con-
struction workers.
As observed in Table 6, there is large-scale spatial variation in the collection
and utilisation of cess. More than 50% of the total cess in 2019 was collected by
six states only. This includes Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana. However, a few of these states fall short of the tar-
geted amount. Collection of cess fund in general is found proportional to the share
of construction GVA to national GVA (Fig. 4), but states like Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh that are ranked high in construction GVA contribution have relatively less
cess collection. Maharashtra on the other hand with the third highest construction
GVA of 9.5% in 2019 collected 14.9% cess. Similar variation can also be observed

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1061

Table 6  Key ratios of cess Major states Ratio of Percentage of % share of

spent and collected and share of amount of cess collec- construc-
construction GVA cess spent tion tion GVA
and amount to national
of cess col- GVA
lected (%)

2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019

1 4 5 2 3 6 7

Andhra Pradesh 2.7 21.9 10.9 4.8 4.8 4.6

Assam 0.1 21.6 0.4 1.8 1.5 2.3
Bihar 0.1 14.3 2.3 3.2 3.5 3.8
Chhattisgarh 12.1 83.7 0.6 2.3 2.4 2.4
Gujarat 0.1 9.4 4.2 4.2 5.7 5.7
Haryana 1.6 24.6 7.6 5.0 3.8 3.8
Himachal Pradesh 0.0 13.9 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.9
Jammu and Kashmir – 42.4 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.9
Jharkhand 0.6 53.2 0.4 0.9 1.9 1.8
Karnataka 0.8 89.1 14.9 10.2 6.5 6.2
Kerala 76.6 120.5 10.6 3.9 6.8 7.0
Madhya Pradesh 36.5 53.8 9.8 5.4 4.5 4.7
Maharashtra 0.0 5.4 0.2 14.9 10.4 9.5
Odisha 0.0 77.5 1.8 3.7 2.6 2.6
Punjab 1.5 53.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.4
Rajasthan 0.0 55.7 0.6 4.5 5.6 5.0
Tamil Nadu 43.6 26.6 8.7 6.0 11.9 13.1
Telangana - 21.7 0.0 2.4 2.9 2.8
Uttar Pradesh 0.0 27.1 1.3 9.6 10.9 11.7
Uttarakhand 0.0 27.2 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.3
West Bengal 0.9 44.7 5.1 4.3 5.7 6.6
Delhi 4.3 9.4 15.2 4.4 2.1 2.5
All India 17.1 39.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Data relating to cess collected and spent for 2019 have
been compiled from Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No-278 (as on
31–03–2019). Information on State GVA at 2011–2012 price (as on
15–03–2021) has been compiled from National Account Statistics,
MOSPI

in utilisation ratios. Some of the important states like Gujarat, Maharashtra, and
Delhi spent less than 10% of cess in 2019, whereas Kerala, Karnataka, and Chhat-
tisgarh reported more than 80% spending of cess.
From the analysis, it is observed that utilisation of cess and registration of work-
ers is not proportionally related. Even in those states where normal and active regis-
tration rates are high, spending of cess is very low. To illustrate, Gujarat and Maha-
rashtra with more than 80% active registration spent less than 10% of cess available
in 2019. The data on registration are contested with respect to Chhattisgarh which

ISLE 13
1062 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Fig. 4  Cess collection and share of construction GVA. Source: Data relating to cess collected and spent
for 2019 have been compiled from Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 278, 2019, and information on
State GVA at 2011–2012 price (as on 15–03–2021) has been taken from National Account Statistics,
MOSPI

shows very high active registration and utilisation ratio, but the state has no account
seeded with Aadhar (see Table 5). In Kerala, also only 29% bank accounts are linked
to Aadhar Card, but state CWB claims to have spent more than 100% cess in 2019.
The lack of uniformity in the design and implementation of welfare measures has
been a major concern, and it has got more attention during COVID-19. According to
Model Welfare Framework and Mission Mode Project, health, pension, skill devel-
opment, and education should be given priority. It is also advised to CWBs to enrol
construction workers in central and state government social welfare schemes. But
the reality is that still a majority of the state construction welfare boards are running
a large number of welfare schemes which are not necessarily required to be covered
through the cess fund.
These issues can be addressed if the CWBs work effectively and implement the
welfare measures as per the guidelines of the MoLE and the mandate of BOCW
Act 1996. The Supreme Court in its judgement in 2018 had already given detailed
directions related to registration of workers,5 strengthening the mechanism of cess
collection, develops a composite model framework scheme in a specified time span
to do away with the multiplicity of schemes, and to conduct social audit reports on
the implementation of BOCW Act. Following the direction of the Supreme Court,
MoLE formulated a Model Welfare Framework and Action Plan in 2018. The

5
The Supreme Court in its judgement on June 21, 2021, has invoked that registration of all informal
workers including the construction workers is pivotal and most important to get the social security ben-
efits.

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1063

salience of the action plan was related to time bound implementation of actions,
and modification and simplification of the BOCW Rules 1998. It was suggested that
each registered worker will be given a unique identity card that will help in port-
ability of welfare schemes. Workers can self-certify the number of days worked in
the past year. Similarly for cess collection, all private and public organisations (such
as Railways) were asked to pay cess at the stipulated rate and to transfer the same
to CWBs within 30 days of its collection. The Model Welfare Framework also pri-
oritises life and disability care, health and education, and housing and skill develop-
ment over all other existing benefits. It is only after meeting these priority expenses
that any balance of fund may be used for providing additional benefits.
But during COVID-19, it came to notice that only 18 million workers (34% of
total estimated workers) could avail the cash assistance through DBT due to non-
availability of Aadhar and bank account details in the first wave. States like Bihar
where details of bank account and Aadhar are mandatory to fill at the time of regis-
tration show that no account is seeded with Aadhar. Overall, the registration rate has
increased, but 30% workers are still not registered and there is a big issue of faulty
registration. With continued emphasis on registration, MoLE once again launched a
Mission Mode Project (MMP) on July 6, 2020, to register all the left-out construc-
tion workers. The project also aimed at providing social security to all, subsistence
wage allowance, and collected construction welfare data in a time bound manner.
The outcomes of the project, however, are not yet known. The latest information
given by MoLE in Rajya Sabha in March 2021 shows that only 34.7 million con-
struction workers are registered with welfare boards (Rajya Sabha, 2021b, 2020b).
Infection prevention and maintenance of health and hygiene are some of the chal-
lenges that also need attention. Minimising the spread of virus should be a top prior-
ity given the nature of workforce, living, and working conditions in the construc-
tion sector. In construction, majority of the work is performed on site, and hence,
maintaining physical distance is quite difficult. Majority of the workers are also less
educated and minimally protected. Living and working conditions are already poor;
therefore, maintaining hygiene at worksite and at living place is very important.
Past studies (Srivastava and Jha, 2016; Jha, 2017) show that living conditions of
workers are already a major challenge. The housing accommodations for the work-
ers at the large construction sites are generally very poor, and most of the workers
live in jhuggi-jhopri (temporary sheds) where per worker availability of space in a
room is less than 50 square feet. Access to toilets and drinking water is also poor.
Although ILO (2020c) has already issued detailed guidelines for the construction
sector to maintain health and hygiene, it would depend on how employers can effec-
tively implement these guidelines. Labour unions as an important stakeholder can
play a crucial role in ensuring that workers get a healthy workplace environment.
At a large worksite, a flexible model of work can be adopted, the living place can
be cleaned and sanitised regularly, and workers can be given some extra premium
to maintain their hygiene and stay healthy. BOCW Rules 1998 (Rule 39 and 223)
provide detailed guidelines on health and safety policy and medical examination of
workers on a periodic basis which, if followed, can address problems emerging due
to COVID-19. This coupled with vaccination can bring the lives and livelihoods of
construction workers back on track. Government both at the centre and the states can

ISLE 13
1064 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

play a crucial in providing speedy access to vaccination, and employers and work-
ers’ organisation can create awareness among workers to get vaccinated. Although
the active cases in India have declined to 1.22% as on September 3, 2021, and a total
of 67 billion people have received at least one dose vaccination, still a large segment
of the population remains to be covered (MoHFW, 2021).

6 Conclusion

Construction has been the worst hit sector because of its sensitive nature and large
presence of informal and circular migrant workers. Cash assistance through DBT
has partly helped in reducing the misery of the construction workers, but not more
than 35% of the total workers in 2018–2019 received the benefit provided by CWBs.
A significant proportion did not get benefits due to non-renewal of their annual reg-
istration and non-linking of Aadhar to the bank account. In terms of total amount
disbursed, huge variation is noticed across the states; in fact, few states are found to
have not provided any cash benefit. The other concern is how many migrant work-
ers are benefitted in total. The benefits to migrant workers appear less than hoped
because in many states in the absence of a domicile certificate they are not eligible
to register with the CWBs.
During this crisis, it has been realised that registration of all informal workers
through a unified system is vital to bring some kind of formality in the labour mar-
ket and also to provide direct welfare measures. According to the Supreme Court
judgment dated June 21, 2021, registration is pivotal and most important insofar as
welfare measures are concerned. It was directed by the court that both union and
state governments should complete the process of registration of all informal work-
ers and create a database latest by December 31, 2021. Before that, in 2018 the
Supreme Court had given specific direction to MoLE to scale up and simplify the
process of registration of construction workers in a time bound manner. In response
to the direction, MoLE made a Model Welfare Framework in 2018 through which all
CWBs were advised to speed the process of registration, simplify the process, and
create an online mechanism of registration. Again in 2020, MoLE started a Mission
Mode Project to increase the coverage of registration and create a dynamic database
of construction workers. The outcome of the project is not exactly known, but in
some states the process of online registration has begun. For example, an e-Nirman
portal was launched by Gujarat government on June 8, 2021, for online registra-
tion of construction workers. In some states (Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, for
instance), the process of online registration began just after the implementation of
Model Welfare Framework in 2018. More recently on the direction of the Supreme
Court, MoLE has launched the e-Shram portal for registration of all kinds of infor-
mal workers. Additionally, e-Shram portal will allow portability of social security
and welfare benefits to the migrant and construction workers.
But the eligibility criteria for registration of workers on e-Shram portal are differ-
ent from the criteria of registration of a construction worker under section-12 of the
BOCW Act 1996. The question is: How to achieve parity? Even section-106 of the
Social Security Code 2020 lays down the same criteria as stated in the BOCW Act

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067 1065

1996. There is a need to bring uniformity in the registration of construction work-

ers in any of these platforms. More importantly, multiple platforms for registration
may create confusion among workers. It would be better if registration of construc-
tion workers is done through CWBs by speeding up the process and simplifying the
norms.
Portability of registration and welfare schemes is a major concern for migrant
construction workers, and the ways to deal with it have already been discussed in
the Mission Mode Project. However, the main concern is how to ensure registration
of migrant construction workers in destination states. Moreover, with the start of
e-Shram portal the question now is whether the construction workers registered with
this portal would get all benefits provided by CWBs.
Lack of uniformity in design and implementation of social welfare measures by
the CWBs is also an issue that needs to be resolved. Now, a new task would be to
synchronise centrally sponsored welfare schemes implemented through the e-Shram
portal with state-specific welfare schemes implemented through state CWBs. In its
absence, there will be a duplication of welfare measures by the union government
and the state governments.
As the pandemic is not yet over, the efforts to vaccinate, create awareness, pro-
vide extra premium to workers, and to maintain health and hygiene at worksite and
living place are very crucial. For this purpose, it is very important for all stakehold-
ers to take collective action.

Funding The study has not received any grant from any institution/agency. It is solely self-financed.

Declarations

Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest involved.

References
APU. 2021. State of Working India 2021: One Year of COVID-19. Centre for Sustainable Employment,
Azim Premji University.
Bhattacharya, Shrayana, and Sutirtha Sinha Roy. 2021. Intent to Implementation: Tracking India’s Social
Protection Response to COVID-19, Discussion Paper No. 2107. World Bank.
Breman, Jan. 2020. The Pandemic in India and Its Impact on Footloose Labour. The Indian Journal of
Labour Economics 63 (4): 901–919.
Buckley, Michelle et al. 2016. Migrant Work and Employment in the Construction Sector. International
Labour Organisation.
Dalberg. 2020. Efficacy of government entitlements for low-income families during Covid-19. https://​
impac​tsofc​ovid.​in/​assets/​front_​assets/​downl​oad/​20.​07.​27_​Effic​acy%​20of%​20gov​ernme​nt%​20ent​
itlem​ents%​20for%​20low-​income%​20fam​ilies%​20dur​ing%​20Cov​id-​19.​pdf
Desai, Renu. 2017. Entitlements of Seasonal Migrant Construction Workers to Housing, Basic Services
and Social Infrastructure in Gujarat’s Cities: A Background Policy Paper. Working Paper 35, Centre
for Urban Equity, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
GOI. 2021. Economic Survey 2020–2021, Vol II, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Government of Bihar. 2021. Budget Speech 2021–2022. https://​openb​udget​sindia.​org/​datas​et/​5c943​f0f-​
7895-​4764-​b125-​b1842​a1e46​78/​resou​rce/​dbc0e​51d-​d2bb-​4560-​8c0b-​618e4​13302​0b/​downl​oad/ ​
budget-​speech.​pdf

ISLE 13
1066 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2021) 64:1043–1067

Hindustan Times. 2021. Over 1.3 million Migrants Left Delhi During 2nd Wave of COVID-19, July 2.
https://​www.​hindu​stant​imes.​com/​cities/​delhi-​news/​over-1-​3-​milli​on-​migra​nts-​left-​city-​during-​2nd-​
wave-​shows-​data-​10162​51739​31020.​html
ILO. 2020a. COVID-19 and the World of Work: Impact and Policy Responses. ILO Monitor, 1st ed.
Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
ILO. 2020b. ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the World of Work, 2nd ed. Geneva: International Labour
Organisation.
ILO. 2020c. COVID-19 Action Checklist for the Construction Industry: Practical Measures to help
Employers, Workers and the Self-Employed Prevent and Mitigate the Transmission of COVID-19 in
Construction Work. Geneva: International Labour Organisation. https://​www.​ilo.​org/​global/​topics/​
safety-​and-​health-​at-​work/​resou​rces-​libra​ry/​publi​catio​ns/​WCMS_​764847/​lang--​en/​index.​htm
ILO. 2021a. COVID-19 and the World of Work: Impact and Policy Responses. ILO Monitor, 7th ed.
Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
ILO. 2021b. Impact of COVID-19 on the Construction Sector. ILO Sectoral Brief. ILO, Geneva: Interna-
tional Labour Organization.
Jha, Ajit. 2020. COVID-19 Relief Package: Will Central Largesse Help Construction Workers. Economic
and Political Weekly 55 (17): 20–22.
Jha, Praveen, and Manish Kumar. 2020. Labour in India and the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Indian Eco-
nomic Journal 68 (3): 417–437.
Jha, Ajit K. 2017. The Construction Industry in India: Production Conditions, Labour Practices and Skill
Development. Ph.D. Thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Kapoor, Radhicka. 2020. TIF: The Unequal Effects of the COVID-19 Crisis on the Labour Market. The
India Forum. https://​www.​thein​diafo​rum.​in/​artic​le/​unequ​al-​effec​ts-​covid-​19-​crisis-​labour-​market
Kesar, Surbhi et al. 2020. Pandemic, Informality, and Vulnerability: Impact of COVID-19 on Livelihoods
in India, CSE Working Paper 2020-01, Azim Premji University.
Lingard, Helen, et al. 2021. Special issue: What have we learnt from the COVID-19 global pandemic:
Improving the construction industry’s abilities to foresee, respond to and recover from future
endemic catastrophes. Construction Management and Economics 39 (2): 192–197.
Mehrotra, Santosh and Tuhinsubhra Giri. 2019. The Size Structure of India’s Enterprises: Not Just the
Middle is Missing, CSE Working Paper 25. Azim Premji University.
MoHFW. 2021. COVID-19 India as on 2nd September 2021, 8:00 IST. Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare. https://​www.​mohfw.​gov.​in/​pdf/​Cummu​lativ​eCovi​dVacc​inati​onRep​ort02​septe​mber2​021.​
pdf.
MoLE. 2020. D.O.No.Z-20012/09/2020-BOCW dated July 14, 2020, Ministry of Labour and Employ-
ment, Government of India. https://​labour.​gov.​in/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​DO.​pdf
MoLE. 2018a. Model Welfare Scheme for Building and Other Construction Workers and Action Plan
for Strengthening Implementation Machinery, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of
India. https://​labour.​gov.​in/​whats​new/​model-​welfa​re-​scheme-​build​ing-​and-​other-​const​ructi​on-​worke​
rs-​and-​action-​plan-​stren​gthen​ing
MoLE. 2018b. Report Pilot Social Audit of BOCW Act in Delhi, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India. http://​www.​nirma​na.​org/​Docum​ents/​social_​audit_​report-​delhi.​pdf
PIB. 2020a. Finance Minister announces Rs 1.70 Lakh Crore Relief Package under Pradhan Mantri
Garib Kalyan Yojana for the Poor to Help them Fight the Battle Against Corona Virus, Ministry
of Finance, Press Information Bureau, Press Release, March 26. https://​www.​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​Relea​
sePage.​aspx?​PRID=​16083​45
PIB. 2020b. Labour Ministry Issues Advisory to All States/UTs to use Cess Fund for Welfare of Con-
struction Workers, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Press Information Bureau, Press Release,
March 24. https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​Relea​sePage.​aspx?​PRID=​16079​11
PIB. 2020c. Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Progress so Far, Ministry of Finance, Press Informa-
tion Bureau, Press Release, April 23. https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​Reles​eDeta​il.​aspx?​PRID=​16173​93
PIB. 2020d. Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Package: Progress so Far, Ministry of Finance, Press Informa-
tion Bureau, Press Release, June 20. https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​Relea​sePage.​aspx?​PRID=​16328​63
PIB. 2020e. Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Progress so Far, Ministry of Finance, Press Informa-
tion Bureau, Press Release, September 8. https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​relea​sesha​re.​aspx?​PRID=​16522​31
PIB. 2021. Provisional Estimates of Annual National Income, 2020–2021 and Quarterly Estimates (Q4)
Of Gross Domestic Product, 2020–2021, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Press Information Bureau, Press Release, May 31. https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​Relea​sePage.​aspx?​PRID=​
17231​53

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

Rajan, S., P. Sivakumar. Irudaya, and Aditya Srinivasan. 2020. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Internal
Labour Migration in India: A Crisis of Mobility. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 63 (4):
1021–1039.
Roy, Shamindra Nath, Manish, and Mukta Naik. 2017. Migrants in Construction Work: Evaluating their
Welfare Framework. Policy Brief. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.
Lok Sabha. 2020. Unstarred Question No. 1253 To Be Answered On 19.09.2020 Welfare of Unskilled
and Skilled Migrant Labourers. Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Lok Sabha. 2021a. Unstarred Question No. 8 To Be Answered On 19.07.2021 Building and Other Con-
struction Workers, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Rajya Sabha. 2021b. Unstarred Question No. 1860 To Be Answered On 10.03.2021 Construction Work-
ers Registered Under BOCW Act, 1996. Ministry of Labour and Employment. https://​pqars.​nic.​in/​
annex/​253/​AU1860.​pdf
Soundararajan, Vidhya. 2013. Construction Workers: Amending the Law for More Safety. Economic and
Political Weekly 48 (23): 21–25.
Srivastava, Ravi. 2018. Building India Brick by Brick: Labourers in the Construction Industry. In India
Exclusion Report, 2017–2018. New Delhi: Yoda Press.
Srivastava, Ravi, and Ajit Jha. 2016. Capital and Labour Standards in the Organised Construction Indus-
try in India: A Study Based on Fieldwork in the National Capital Region of Delhi. Project Report
02, Centre for the Study in Regional Development: JNU, New Delhi.
Srivastava, R. 2020a. Understanding Circular Migration in India. Its Nature and Dimensions, the Crisis
under Lockdown and the Response of the State. IHD Centre for Employment Studies Working Paper
04/2020, Institute for Human Development, New Delhi.
Srivastava, Ravi. 2020b. Labour Migration, Vulnerability, and Development Policy: The Pandemic as
Inflexion Point. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 63 (4): 859–883.
Srivastava, Ravi et al. 2020c. Internal Migration in India and the Impact of Uneven Development and
Demographic Transition across States: A study for evidence-based policy. New Delhi: Institute for
Human Development.
SWAN. 2020. 32 Days and Counting: COVID-19 Lockdown, Migrant Workers, and the Inadequacy of
Welfare Measures in India. strandedworkers.in/mdocs-posts/32-days-and-counting/
The Hindu. 2021. Parliamentary Panel Recommends Money in banks, social security measures for infor-
mal workers, August 3. https://​www.​thehi​ndu.​com/​news/​natio​nal/​parli​ament​ary-​panel-​recom​mends-​
money-​in-​banks-​social-​secur​ity-​measu​res-​for-​infor​mal-​worke​rs/​artic​le357​03931.​ece
The Supreme Court of India. 2018. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 318 OF 2006. Order Passed on
March 19, 2018. https://​india​nkano​on.​org/​doc/​71520​761/
The Supreme Court of India. 2021. SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6 OF 2020 PROBLEMS
AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS. Order Passed on June 29, 2021. https://​main.​sci.​
gov.​in/​supre​mecou​rt/​2020/​11706/​11706_​2020_​36_​1501_​28166_​Judge​ment_​29-​Jun-​2021.​pdf
van der Loop, Theo. 1996. Industrial Dynamics and Fragmented Labour Market: Construction Firms
and Labourers in India. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Walter, Dagmar. 2020. Implications of COVID-19 for Labour and Employment in India’. The Indian
Journal of Labour Economics 63 (1): 547–551.
Wells, Jill. 2007. Informality in the construction Sector in Developing Countries’. Construction Manage-
ment and Economics 25 (1): 87–93.

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

ISLE 13