India has, on paper, a strong framework of laws designed to protect women in the workplace. We have the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) or ‘POSH’ Act. These laws are progressive, well-intentioned, and absolutely necessary. Yet, for millions of women across the country, the rights promised in these legal documents feel distant, almost fictional. It’s a frustrating paradox: if the laws exist, why aren’t they working effectively for everyone?
The gap between law and reality isn’t just a simple case of poor enforcement. It’s a complex problem built on a foundation of deep-seated biases, massive economic shifts, and even the unexpected side effects of the progressive laws themselves. To understand why women-friendly policies often fail to translate into real-world change, we need to look beyond the law books and into the environments where women actually work.
Table of Contents
The invisible barrier: Patriarchal and sexist mindsets
The single greatest obstacle to any women-friendly law is the pervasive patriarchal mindset that still governs many workplaces. This bias often isn’t loud or openly aggressive; it’s subtle, couched in economic terms, and deeply ingrained in corporate culture. The most common example is the way employers perceive maternity and childcare.
Many employers, consciously or unconsciously, view women as a potential ‘financial burden.’ When the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act of 2017 was passed, it was celebrated as a huge win, extending paid leave to 26 weeks. However, because the law places the financial responsibility for this leave directly on the employer, it created an unintended consequence. Studies and anecdotal reports show that many companies, particularly smaller ones, became hesitant to hire women for long-term roles, fearing the “cost” associated with maternity leave.
This mindset is reinforced by sexist statements that occasionally make their way into the public domain, such as officials suggesting that pregnancy is a “nuisance” or a disruption to workflow. When leaders in business or even government express such views, it sends a powerful signal that women’s biological realities are a problem to be managed, not a normal part of life to be supported. This attitude neutralizes the empowering effect of the law. A woman may legally be entitled to 26 weeks of leave, but she may be subtly penalized for it through smaller raises, missed promotions, or being side-lined from important projects upon her return.
When the law can’t find you: The rise of the unorganized sector
Legal protections are only effective if they can be enforced. But what happens when the majority of the workforce operates in a space with no formal oversight? This is the reality of India’s unorganized, or informal, sector. Driven by economic globalization, outsourcing, and a persistent lack of formal-sector jobs, more and more people-especially women-are pushed into this shadow economy.
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), over 90% of India’s working women are in the informal sector. This includes domestic workers, home-based garment stitchers, agricultural labourers, street vendors, and construction workers. For these women, laws on equal wages, safe working hours, maternity benefits, or protection from harassment are practically non-existent.
Think about it:
- How do you enforce equal pay when wages are paid in cash, with no payslips or contracts?
- How do you implement safety guidelines for a domestic worker in a private home or a farm labourer on a small, family-owned plot?
- How does a woman report harassment when her ’employer’ is a subcontractor who himself is two or three steps removed from the main company?
This structural reality makes implementing guidelines nearly impossible. The unorganized sector thrives on flexibility and low costs, which too often translates to exploitation. Women in this sector are uniquely vulnerable, as they lack the formal employer-employee relationship that forms the basis of all labour law.
The exception zones: Suspended labour rights in SEZs
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were created to be engines of growth, attracting foreign investment and boosting exports. To make them “business-friendly,” these zones are often given special status, including exemptions or modifications to standard Indian labour laws. In many states, SEZs are declared ‘public utility services’ to make it extremely difficult for workers to legally go on strike or form active trade unions.
A significant portion of the workforce in SEZs, particularly in garment manufacturing, electronics assembly, and IT-enabled services, consists of women. These women are frequently hired as contract labour rather than permanent employees. This contractual status is a loophole that denies them many protections. They work long hours to meet intense production targets, often without the right to overtime pay or the job security that permanent workers have.
In this environment, women’s rights are the first casualty. The pressure for productivity and efficiency overrides concerns about discrimination, working hours, or even basic safety. If a woman faces harassment, she is less likely to report it for fear of her contract simply not being renewed. The very zones designed to modernise India’s economy can, in practice, become enclaves where fundamental labour rights are suspended, leaving women unprotected.
Outsourcing, fragmentation, and invisible health risks
The nature of work itself has changed. It’s no longer just about one large factory with thousands of workers. Today, production is often “fragmented” or “outsourced.” A large brand might design a product, but the manufacturing is subcontracted to a smaller firm, which then subcontracts parts of the work to even smaller workshops or even home-based workers.
This complex supply chain makes it incredibly difficult to enforce occupational health and safety (OHS) standards. An inspector might visit the main, branded factory, which is clean and compliant. But the real dangers lie hidden in the small, unregulated workshops where women are working with toxic chemicals without ventilation, or in agricultural fields where they handle pesticides without protective gear. The government has acknowledged the challenges in ensuring OHS, especially in the informal and agricultural sectors, which are dominated by women.
These work-related hazards are often invisible and slow-moving. They don’t result in a sudden, dramatic accident but in long-term, debilitating health problems. This includes respiratory illnesses from textile dust, musculoskeletal disorders from repetitive assembly-line work, and reproductive health issues from pesticide exposure. Because the work is outsourced, the primary company can deny responsibility, and the small-scale subcontractor lacks the resources or incentive to invest in safety, leaving women to bear the physical cost of production.
Good intentions, unintended consequences
Finally, we come to one of the most complex obstacles: the unintended consequences of progressive judicial and legal actions. When courts and parliament pass judgments and laws that assert women’s rights, they are, of course, doing the right thing. However, if these laws impose new responsibilities or costs *solely* on the employer without any state support, they can inadvertently backfire.
We’ve already discussed the Maternity Benefit Act. The judicial pressure for crèches, internal complaint committees for POSH, and other necessary measures all add to the administrative and financial responsibilities of a company. While large corporations can absorb these costs, smaller businesses may start to see hiring women as a ‘liability’ or a ‘complex’ compliance issue. This reinforces the old sexist belief that women are more expensive or difficult to employ than men.
This is a major contributing factor to India’s worryingly low and stagnant Female Labour Force Participation Rate (FLFP). Instead of being integrated into the workforce, women are being pushed out or confined to the informal sector, where no such laws apply. This doesn’t mean the laws are wrong; it means they are incomplete. Without a corresponding social shift and state support-such as state-subsidised maternity leave or public childcare facilities-these laws can accidentally punish the very people they are meant to protect.
Ultimately, a law on paper is only a promise. Turning that promise into a reality requires more than just legislation. It requires fighting deep-rooted cultural biases, finding innovative ways to protect the millions in the unorganized sector, and designing “smart” policies that share the responsibility of equality between employers, the state, and society as a whole.
What do you think? In your experience, what is the single biggest barrier to women’s rights at work? And how can we make employers see maternity and childcare as a shared social responsibility, not just a company cost?
Leave a Reply