(a) "ILO is still relevant for Modern India." Elaborate in detail. 20 (b) "Industrial Democracy functions in India through the…

(a) The continuing relevance of the ILO for modern India

The International Labour Organization, founded in 1919 and a tripartite body of governments, employers and workers, sets international labour standards. India is a founding member, and the ILO remains relevant in several ways.

• Standards and benchmarks. Conventions and recommendations on freedom of association, forced labour, equal remuneration, discrimination and child labour give India a benchmark for its own laws. India's ratification in 2017 of Convention 138 (minimum age) and Convention 182 (worst forms of child labour) shaped its child-labour legislation.
• Decent work and sustainable development. The Decent Work Agenda is tied to Sustainable Development Goal 8, and India works with the ILO on employment, skills and social protection.
• Informal and gig workers. Nearly all Indian workers are in the informal sector. The ILO's social protection floor and its work on platform workers guide the design of portable benefits and coverage for them, which the traditional employer-employee model does not reach.
• Tripartism. The ILO's emphasis on social dialogue supports India's tripartite bodies, such as the Indian Labour Conference, and the four labour codes now in force (from 21.11.2025), which consolidate older laws and extend social security.
• Technical assistance and data. Decent Work Country Programmes, research and capacity building support India's policies.

Criticisms are that conventions are slow to be agreed, not binding without ratification, weakly enforced, and designed for formal employment; India has not ratified two fundamental conventions, on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Yet these gaps make the ILO's guidance more, not less, necessary. The ILO therefore remains a relevant source of standards, dialogue and assistance for India's shift towards formal, decent work.

(b) Industrial democracy through levels and matters of participation

Industrial democracy means giving workers a voice in the decisions of the enterprise that affect them. In India it operates through demarcation of levels at which workers take part, and of the matters on which they participate.

Levels:

• Shop-floor level: works committees (now under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020), shop councils and joint councils. Matters are daily concerns such as safety, welfare, discipline, grievances, working hours and productivity.
• Plant or unit level: joint management councils, which were set up by a 1958 scheme and extended by the 1975 scheme. They deal with production planning, training, welfare facilities, labour-management relations and introduction of new methods.
• Board level: worker directors in public sector undertakings and employee directors in nationalised banks. They take part in policy, investment and strategic decisions.

The degree of participation differs as well, from information sharing and consultation to joint decision and, in rare cases, self-management. Participation can also be in results, through bonus, profit-sharing and employee share ownership.

Matters are matched to levels: operational and welfare issues at the lower levels and strategic, policy and financial issues at the board. This gives workers a voice where they have knowledge and interest, and lets management keep authority over strategy. In practice participation has been limited by weak unions, management reluctance and the fact that most workers are informal, so the system works best in organised, public sector firms.

(c) Placement problems in larger and scattered organisations

Placement is the assignment of a selected employee to a specific job, matching the person with the job. I agree that problems are greater in large and geographically scattered organisations.

The reasons: headquarters and units differ in needs, so a central policy may not match local conditions and language; information about vacancies and employee skills is hard to keep up to date; transfers across regions create resistance, family hardship and cost; and large hierarchies have limited vacancies, leading to promotion bottlenecks and stagnation. The fairness of postings, seniority versus merit, and rival claims among units are also harder to handle.

Smaller, compact organisations can manage by personal knowledge, so these problems are fewer.

Remedies include a central database of skills and vacancies, internal job posting, rotation and transfer policies with clear norms, and HR information systems. So the statement is largely correct, although good systems can reduce the problem.