Last week saw one of the most significant domestic developments in recent months: a massive street protest by labourers in the Noida industrial belt adjoining the national capital. Estimates suggest that nearly 40,000 workers participated, demanding higher wages.

Companies mentioned included Motherson Sumi, supplier to Daiml, and brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and Honda, indicating that the disruption cut across both large corporates and smaller units.

The core demand was wage parity with workers in Gurugram. Though Gurugram is in Haryana and Noida in Uttar Pradesh, the two hubs—barely 50 km apart—form part of a tightly integrated National Capital Region (NCR). Thousands commute daily between them; many live in one and work in the other. In practice, the NCR functions as a single labour market, even if it spans three States.

The trigger was Haryana’s decision to raise minimum wages by 35% following local unrest. Uttar Pradesh responded with a 21% increase after tensions surfaced in Noida. Yet parity remains elusive. While “equal pay for equal work” arose from a gender perspective, its logic applies equally to regional disparities within a unified labour market.

Minimum wages in India vary across states and between central and state notifications. The Code on Wages, 2019, introduced a statutory “National Floor Wage” to address such gaps. However, since labour is a Concurrent List subject, implementation depends on the states and remains incomplete.

A comparison of minimum wages in the NCR illustrates the gap:

Such differences carry an inbuilt risk of unrest. If four members of the same family perform identical work for the same hours in different parts of the NCR, they return home with unequal earnings.

These distortions are what the new Labour Codes—passed by Parliament in 2025—seek to address. The four codes, effective November 2025, consolidate 29 laws into frameworks on wages, social security, industrial relations and occupational safety. They represent a balancing act between flexibility for employers and expanded protections for workers. The reform effort itself deserves acknowledgement, though critics argue that the balance tilts toward capital.

Even before full state-level implementation, corporates have begun adjusting. Major IT firms such as TCS, Infosys and Wipro reported lower net profits in the December quarter after provisioning for employee-related costs. These early responses suggest the codes will strengthen employee benefits.

This matters because low wages, poor working conditions, and a lack of basic social protection still persist across India. 

Neha Dixit’s 2024 book The Many Lives of Syeda X captures this reality. It recounts the story of a woman from Uttar Pradesh who undertakes nearly 50 types of low-paying jobs over two decades to support her family, often without contracts or security.

Interestingly, the primary sector sometimes reflects a different ethos. Social compacts in rural India often create a sense of mutual obligation between landowners and labour.

During one of my field visits, I recall a farmer in Gulbarga who continued cultivating tur dal despite falling prices that guaranteed losses. Leaving land fallow would deprive village labour—who had depended on his family for generations—of work. He chose to bear losses to fulfil his “daayitva” (responsibility). Such thinking is rare in corporate settings.

Among large business groups, a culture of employee care is uneven. It is most visible in the Tata and TVS groups. Among regional players, Keralam’s Malayala Manorama group also stands out. Sustainable growth requires that equity for labour be practised in both letter and spirit.

The Gurugram–Noida protests reflect the challenges of transitioning labour from an informal to a formal economy. Compliance costs will rise, and competitiveness may be affected. Yet firms will adapt through productivity gains. Progress—higher incomes and a decent standard of living—cannot be selective.

A situation where labour and capital try to operate from adversarial sides will never acquire equilibrium. The objective of the new labour codes is to achieve higher standards of fairness. But implementation has to have the support of the States.

Evidently, there has to be give and take between labour and capital and constructive intervention by the Governments. Synthesis is economically necessary not just philosophically desirable. As Deendayal Upadhyaya envisaged, the relationship between labour and capital has to be based on synthesis (samanwaya) and not conflict (sangharsha).