Warning (2): preg_replace(): Unknown modifier 'F' [APP/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp, line 34]
Code Context

        $titleText = preg_replace('/(' . $qryStr . ')/is', "<font style='background-color:yellow;'>" . $qryStr . "</font>", strip_tags($titleText));
        $descText = preg_replace('/(' . $qryStr . ')/is', "<font style='background-color:yellow;'>" . $qryStr . "</font>", strip_tags($descText));
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'articleList' => object(Cake\ORM\ResultSet) {

		'items' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	
	},
	'qryStr' => 'Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill 2019',
	'mostViewSectionData' => [],
	'topTwentyTags' => [
		(int) 0 => 'Agriculture',
		(int) 1 => 'Food Security',
		(int) 2 => 'Law and Justice',
		(int) 3 => 'Health',
		(int) 4 => 'Right to Food',
		(int) 5 => 'Corruption',
		(int) 6 => 'farming',
		(int) 7 => 'Environment',
		(int) 8 => 'Right to Information',
		(int) 9 => 'NREGS',
		(int) 10 => 'Human Rights',
		(int) 11 => 'Governance',
		(int) 12 => 'PDS',
		(int) 13 => 'COVID-19',
		(int) 14 => 'Land Acquisition',
		(int) 15 => 'mgnrega',
		(int) 16 => 'Farmers',
		(int) 17 => 'transparency',
		(int) 18 => 'Gender',
		(int) 19 => 'Poverty'
	],
	'bottomNewsAlertArticlesData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 65259,
			'name' => ' Moving Upstream: Luni – Fellowship',
			'seo_url' => 'moving-upstream-luni-fellowship',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 65169,
			'name' => ' 135 Million Indians Exited “Multidimensional" Poverty as per Government...',
			'seo_url' => '135-million-indians-exited-multidimensional-poverty-as-per-government-figures-is-that-the-same-as-poverty-reduction',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 65120,
			'name' => ' Explainer: Why are Tomato Prices on Fire?',
			'seo_url' => 'explainer-why-are-tomato-prices-on-fire',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 64981,
			'name' => ' NSSO Survey: Only 39.1% of all Households have Drinking...',
			'seo_url' => 'nsso-survey-only-39-1-of-all-households-have-drinking-water-within-dwelling-46-7-of-rural-households-use-firewood-for-cooking',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		]
	],
	'videosData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 393,
			'name' => ' Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...',
			'seo_url' => 'Short-Video-on-im4change-Hindi-website-Inclusive-Media-for-Change',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/I51LYnP8BOk/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 392,
			'name' => ' "Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-1- Scope-of-IDEA-and-AgriStack-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/kNqha-SwfIY/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 390,
			'name' => ' "Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-2-Farmer-Centric-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/6kIVjlgZItk/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 389,
			'name' => ' "Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-3-Future-of-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/2BeHTu0y7xc/1.jpg'
		]
	],
	'videos_archivesData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 388,
			'name' => ' Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for...',
			'title' => 'Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for Agrarian Studies)',
			'seo_url' => 'Public-Spending-on-Agriculture-in-India-Source-Foundation-for-Agrarian-Studies',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/s6ScX4zFRyU/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 387,
			'name' => ' Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws...',
			'title' => 'Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws in India' by Prof. Vikas Rawal, JNU (Source: Journal Of Agrarian Change) ',
			'seo_url' => 'Agrarian-Change-Seminar-Protests-against-the-New-Farm-Laws-in-India-by-Prof-Vikas-Rawal-JNU-Source-Journal-Of-Agrarian-Change',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/SwSmSv0CStE/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 386,
			'name' => ' Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis...',
			'title' => 'Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis (Source: Azim Premji University)',
			'seo_url' => 'Webinar-Ramrao-The-Story-of-India-Farm-Crisis-Source-Azim-Premji-University',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/sSxUZnSDXgY/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 385,
			'name' => ' Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship...',
			'title' => 'Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship (Source: IGIDR)',
			'seo_url' => 'water-and-agricultural-transformation-in-India',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcaVuNYK_e8/1.jpg'
		]
	],
	'urlPrefix' => '',
	'rightLinl_success' => 'Success Stories',
	'rightLinl_interview' => 'Interviews',
	'rightLinl_interview_link' => 'interviews',
	'readMoreAlerts' => 'Read More',
	'moreNewAlerts' => 'More News Alerts...',
	'moreNewsClippings' => 'More...',
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'dataReportArticleMenu' => [
		(int) 8 => [
			(int) 1 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 6 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 33 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 7 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 35 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 2 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 9 => [
			(int) 36 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 30 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 29 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 28 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 3192 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 11 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 3193 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 27 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 18 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 10 => [
			(int) 20357 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 13 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 21 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 20 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 12 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 15 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 14 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 57 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 23 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 12 => [
			(int) 22 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 25 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 24 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 13 => [
			(int) 20358 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 17 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 26 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 8 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 16 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 19 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		]
	],
	'dataReportCat' => [
		(int) 8 => 'Farm Crisis',
		(int) 9 => 'Empowerment',
		(int) 10 => 'Hunger / HDI',
		(int) 12 => 'Environment',
		(int) 13 => 'Law & Justice'
	],
	'curPageURL' => 'https://im4change.in/search?qryStr=Andhra+Pradesh+Employment+of+Local+Candidates+in+the+Industries%2FFactories+Bill%2C+2019',
	'youtube_video_id' => 'MmaTlntk-wc',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$articleList = object(Cake\ORM\ResultSet) {

	'items' => [
		(int) 0 => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {}
	]

}
$qryStr = 'Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill 2019'
$mostViewSectionData = []
$topTwentyTags = [
	(int) 0 => 'Agriculture',
	(int) 1 => 'Food Security',
	(int) 2 => 'Law and Justice',
	(int) 3 => 'Health',
	(int) 4 => 'Right to Food',
	(int) 5 => 'Corruption',
	(int) 6 => 'farming',
	(int) 7 => 'Environment',
	(int) 8 => 'Right to Information',
	(int) 9 => 'NREGS',
	(int) 10 => 'Human Rights',
	(int) 11 => 'Governance',
	(int) 12 => 'PDS',
	(int) 13 => 'COVID-19',
	(int) 14 => 'Land Acquisition',
	(int) 15 => 'mgnrega',
	(int) 16 => 'Farmers',
	(int) 17 => 'transparency',
	(int) 18 => 'Gender',
	(int) 19 => 'Poverty'
]
$bottomNewsAlertArticlesData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 65259,
		'name' => ' Moving Upstream: Luni – Fellowship',
		'seo_url' => 'moving-upstream-luni-fellowship',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 65169,
		'name' => ' 135 Million Indians Exited “Multidimensional" Poverty as per Government...',
		'seo_url' => '135-million-indians-exited-multidimensional-poverty-as-per-government-figures-is-that-the-same-as-poverty-reduction',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 65120,
		'name' => ' Explainer: Why are Tomato Prices on Fire?',
		'seo_url' => 'explainer-why-are-tomato-prices-on-fire',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 64981,
		'name' => ' NSSO Survey: Only 39.1% of all Households have Drinking...',
		'seo_url' => 'nsso-survey-only-39-1-of-all-households-have-drinking-water-within-dwelling-46-7-of-rural-households-use-firewood-for-cooking',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	]
]
$videosData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 393,
		'name' => ' Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...',
		'seo_url' => 'Short-Video-on-im4change-Hindi-website-Inclusive-Media-for-Change',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/I51LYnP8BOk/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 392,
		'name' => ' "Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-1- Scope-of-IDEA-and-AgriStack-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/kNqha-SwfIY/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 390,
		'name' => ' "Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-2-Farmer-Centric-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/6kIVjlgZItk/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 389,
		'name' => ' "Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-3-Future-of-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/2BeHTu0y7xc/1.jpg'
	]
]
$videos_archivesData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 388,
		'name' => ' Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for...',
		'title' => 'Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for Agrarian Studies)',
		'seo_url' => 'Public-Spending-on-Agriculture-in-India-Source-Foundation-for-Agrarian-Studies',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/s6ScX4zFRyU/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 387,
		'name' => ' Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws...',
		'title' => 'Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws in India' by Prof. Vikas Rawal, JNU (Source: Journal Of Agrarian Change) ',
		'seo_url' => 'Agrarian-Change-Seminar-Protests-against-the-New-Farm-Laws-in-India-by-Prof-Vikas-Rawal-JNU-Source-Journal-Of-Agrarian-Change',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/SwSmSv0CStE/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 386,
		'name' => ' Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis...',
		'title' => 'Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis (Source: Azim Premji University)',
		'seo_url' => 'Webinar-Ramrao-The-Story-of-India-Farm-Crisis-Source-Azim-Premji-University',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/sSxUZnSDXgY/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 385,
		'name' => ' Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship...',
		'title' => 'Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship (Source: IGIDR)',
		'seo_url' => 'water-and-agricultural-transformation-in-India',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcaVuNYK_e8/1.jpg'
	]
]
$urlPrefix = ''
$rightLinl_success = 'Success Stories'
$rightLinl_interview = 'Interviews'
$rightLinl_interview_link = 'interviews'
$readMoreAlerts = 'Read More'
$moreNewAlerts = 'More News Alerts...'
$moreNewsClippings = 'More...'
$lang = 'EN'
$dataReportArticleMenu = [
	(int) 8 => [
		(int) 1 => [
			'title' => 'Farm Suicides',
			'days' => (float) 728,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-27 01:16:01',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672099200,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/farmers039-suicides-14.html'
		],
		(int) 6 => [
			'title' => 'Unemployment',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:36:30',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/unemployment-30.html'
		],
		(int) 33 => [
			'title' => 'Rural distress',
			'days' => (float) 767,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-11-18 01:08:04',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1668729600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/rural-distress-70.html'
		],
		(int) 7 => [
			'title' => 'Migration',
			'days' => (float) 767,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-11-18 01:07:46',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1668729600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/migration-34.html'
		],
		(int) 35 => [
			'title' => 'Key Facts',
			'days' => (float) 1252,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-07-21 12:30:36',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1626825600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/key-facts-72.html'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'title' => 'Debt Trap',
			'days' => (float) 2375,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2018-06-24 08:27:27',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1529798400,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/debt-trap-15.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		(int) 36 => [
			'title' => 'Union Budget And Other Economic Policies',
			'days' => (float) 621,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-04-13 05:00:51',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1681344000,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/union-budget-73.html'
		],
		(int) 30 => [
			'title' => 'Forest and Tribal Rights',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:57:02',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/forest-and-tribal-rights-61.html'
		],
		(int) 29 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Education',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:56:34',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-education-60.html'
		],
		(int) 28 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Food',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:55:28',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-food-59.html'
		],
		(int) 3192 => [
			'title' => 'Displacement',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:54:47',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/displacement-3279.html'
		],
		(int) 11 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Work (MG-NREGA)',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:48:52',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-work-mg-nrega-39.html'
		],
		(int) 3193 => [
			'title' => 'GENDER',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:37:26',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/gender-3280.html'
		],
		(int) 27 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Information',
			'days' => (float) 804,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-10-12 01:58:29',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1665532800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-information-58.html'
		],
		(int) 18 => [
			'title' => 'Social Audit',
			'days' => (float) 1510,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2020-11-05 09:19:21',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1604534400,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/social-audit-48.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		(int) 20357 => [
			'title' => 'Poverty and inequality',
			'days' => (float) 586,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-05-18 10:06:37',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1684368000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/poverty-and-inequality-20499.html'
		],
		(int) 13 => [
			'title' => 'Malnutrition',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:49:33',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/malnutrition-41.html'
		],
		(int) 21 => [
			'title' => 'Public Health',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:49:11',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/public-health-51.html'
		],
		(int) 20 => [
			'title' => 'Education',
			'days' => (float) 728,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-27 01:19:42',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672099200,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/education-50.html'
		],
		(int) 12 => [
			'title' => 'Hunger Overview',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:39:23',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/hunger-overview-40.html'
		],
		(int) 15 => [
			'title' => 'HDI Overview',
			'days' => (float) 750,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-05 01:24:58',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1670198400,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/hdi-overview-45.html'
		],
		(int) 14 => [
			'title' => 'PDS/ Ration/ Food Security',
			'days' => (float) 797,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-10-19 03:14:42',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1666137600,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/pds-ration-food-security-42.html'
		],
		(int) 57 => [
			'title' => 'SDGs',
			'days' => (float) 847,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-08-30 02:45:06',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1661817600,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/sdgs-113.html'
		],
		(int) 23 => [
			'title' => 'Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)',
			'days' => (float) 1223,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-08-19 12:40:33',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1629331200,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/mid-day-meal-scheme-mdms-53.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		(int) 22 => [
			'title' => 'Time Bomb Ticking',
			'days' => (float) 727,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-28 02:29:19',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672185600,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/time-bomb-ticking-52.html'
		],
		(int) 25 => [
			'title' => 'Water and Sanitation',
			'days' => (float) 861,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-08-16 03:24:37',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1660608000,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/water-and-sanitation-55.html'
		],
		(int) 24 => [
			'title' => 'Impact on Agriculture',
			'days' => (float) 1567,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2020-09-09 09:23:52',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1599609600,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/impact-on-agriculture-54.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		(int) 20358 => [
			'title' => 'Social Justice',
			'days' => (float) 249,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2024-04-19 12:29:31',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1713484800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/social-justice-20500.html'
		],
		(int) 17 => [
			'title' => 'Access to Justice',
			'days' => (float) 580,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-05-24 09:31:16',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1684886400,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/access-to-justice-47.html'
		],
		(int) 26 => [
			'title' => 'Human Rights',
			'days' => (float) 943,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-05-26 01:30:51',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1653523200,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/human-rights-56.html'
		],
		(int) 8 => [
			'title' => 'Corruption',
			'days' => (float) 987,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-04-12 03:14:21',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1649721600,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/corruption-35.html'
		],
		(int) 16 => [
			'title' => 'General Insecurity',
			'days' => (float) 1409,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-02-14 04:34:06',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1613260800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/general-insecurity-46.html'
		],
		(int) 19 => [
			'title' => 'Disaster &amp; Relief',
			'days' => (float) 1409,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-02-14 04:23:38',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1613260800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/disaster-relief-49.html'
		]
	]
]
$dataReportCat = [
	(int) 8 => 'Farm Crisis',
	(int) 9 => 'Empowerment',
	(int) 10 => 'Hunger / HDI',
	(int) 12 => 'Environment',
	(int) 13 => 'Law & Justice'
]
$curPageURL = 'https://im4change.in/search?qryStr=Andhra+Pradesh+Employment+of+Local+Candidates+in+the+Industries%2FFactories+Bill%2C+2019'
$youtube_video_id = 'MmaTlntk-wc'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
$rn = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 6,
	'title' => 'Unemployment',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>KEY TRENDS </strong></span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2017-18,&nbsp;24.8&nbsp;percent&nbsp;of&nbsp;rural&nbsp;working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural&nbsp;working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed <strong>AB</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Both the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) and the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018, double of what it was in the decade from 2000 to 2011 <strong>AA</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the 1970s and 1980s, when GDP growth was around 3-4 percent, employment growth was around 2 percent per annum. Since the 1990s, and particularly in the 2000s, GDP growth accelerated to 7 percent but employment growth slowed to 1 percent or even less. The ratio of employment growth to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is now less than 0.1 percent <strong>&part;&part;</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate was estimated to be 5.0 percent during 2015-16 at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate stood at 5.1 percent whereas in urban areas, the same was 4.9 percent (as per the UPS approach) <strong>@$</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In 2015-16, nearly 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc <strong>@$</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In 2015-16, almost 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc <strong>@$</strong>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) proposes to cover 24 lakh Indian youth with meaningful, industry relevant, Skill Based Training under which 5.32 lakh persons have already been enrolled. Of this number, 4.38 lakh have successfully completed training throughout India <strong>$*</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In addition, the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), a placement-linked skill development scheme for rural youth who are poor, as a skilling component of the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) has also been launched. During 2015-16, against a target of skilling 1.78 lakhs candidates under the DDU-GKY, a total of 1.75 lakh have already been trained and 0.60 lakh placed till November 2015 <strong>$*</strong>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The proportion of persons of age 15 years and above with educational level secondary and above was the highest for Christians in rural areas for both males and females (36.3 percent for rural males and 31.1 percent for rural females) and for females in urban areas (62.7 percent) whereas for males in urban areas it was the highest among Sikhs (67.6 percent). Among the specific religious groups, unemployment rate in both rural and urban areas (based on usual status) was the highest for Christians (4.5 percent in rural areas and 5.9 percent in urban areas) and lowest for Sikhs in rural areas (1.3 percent) and Hindus in urban areas (3.3 percent) <strong>@$</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Regardless of which data source is used, it seems clear that employment growth is lagging behind growth in the labour force. For example, according to the Census, between 2001 and 2011, labor force growth was 2.23 percent (male and female combined). This is lower than most estimates of employment growth in this decade of closer to 1.4 percent. Creating more rapid employment opportunities is clearly a major policy challenge <strong>$$</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A rising trend is observed in real wages since 1995 more particularly from 2007 especially in the developed states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. And the acceleration of this rising trend since 2007, even in slack seasons, indicates that the labor shortage is a permanent phenomenon and era of surplus labor is over. At the all India level, there is an upward movement in wage rates since 2006 onwards <strong>$ </strong></p>

<div style="text-align:justify"><br />
&bull; Among rural males, the most demanded field of vocational training was &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (18 percent) followed by &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (17 percent), &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (16 percent), &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades&rsquo; (12 percent) in the rural areas <strong>&pound;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Among rural female, the highest demand for field of training was observed in &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (26 percent).This was followed by the &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical services related work&rsquo; (14 percent) <strong>&pound;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; India&rsquo;s real wages fell 1% between 2008 and 2011, while labour productivity grew 7.6% in the same period. In contrast, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 11% in 2008-11, while labour productivity expanded 9%. India&rsquo;s real wage growth was 1% in 1999-2007, while labour productivity rose by 5%. In 1999-2007, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 13.5%, while labour productivity growth was 9% <strong>&part;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate is estimated to be 3.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate is 3.4 per cent whereas in urban areas, the same is 5.0 per cent under the UPS approach. At all India level, the female unemployment rate is estimated to be 6.9 per cent whereas for males, the unemployment rate is 2.9 per cent under the UPS approach<strong>++</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Employment elasticity of agricultural growth (see the note below) declined from 0.52 during 1983-1993/94 to 0.28 during 1993/94-2004/05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The growth of total employment declined from 2.03 per cent during 1983/1993-94 to 1.85 per cent during 1993-94/2004-05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The share of unorganized sector agricultural workers in the total agricultural workers was 98 per cent during 2004-05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Nearly two-thirds of the agricultural workers (64 per cent) are self-employed, or farmers as we call them, and the remaining, a little over one-third (36 per cent), wage workers<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Growth rate of agricultural employment decelerated from 1.4 per cent during the period 1983/1993-94 to 0.8 per cent during the period 1993-94/2004-05<strong>*</strong></div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Note- </strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons, who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Employment elasticity indicates an increase in employment in response to economic growth. A reduction in employment elasticity suggests that the rate of increase in jobs is on the decline&nbsp;</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>AB </strong>Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2017 - June 2018), which has been produced by the National Statistical Office (released in May 2019), please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>AA </strong>State of Working India 2019, Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/431State_of_Working_India_2019_Centre_for_Sustainable_Employment_Azim_Premji_University.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&part;&part; </strong>State of Working India 2018, Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/577State_of_Working_India_2018.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>@$</strong> Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1, prepared by the Labour Bureau (Chandigarh), please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%205th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202015-16.pdf" title="Report on 5th Annual Employment Unemployment Survey 2015-16">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$*</strong> Economic Survey 2015-16, Ministry of Finance, (<a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol1.pdf">Volume-1</a> , <a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol2.pdf">Volume-2</a>)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>@$</strong> NSS 68th Round Report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12) released in February, 2016, MoSPI (please <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_568_19feb16.pdf">click here</a> to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$$</strong> Economic Survey 2014-15 (Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/448echapter-vol1.compressed.pdf">Vol1</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/476echapter-vol2.pdf">Vol2</a>&nbsp; to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$</strong> <a href="tinymce/uploaded/2013%20Trends%20in%20rural%20wage%20rates_1.pdf">Trends in Rural Wage Rates</a>: Whether India Reached Lewis Turning Point by A Amarender Reddy (2013), International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT/CGIAR)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&pound;</strong> NSS report no. 551 (66/10/6) titled Status of Education and Vocational Training in India (66th Round), July 2009-June 2010, published in March 2013, MoSPI, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf</a></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&part;</strong> Global Wage Report 2012-13: Wages and equitable growth, ILO,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong>++</strong> Report on Second Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12,</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf</a>, &nbsp;</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf</a>, &nbsp;</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf</a> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong># </strong>The Challenge of Employment in India: An Informal Economy Perspective, Volume-I, Main Report, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), April, 2009, <a href="http://nceus.gov.in/">http://nceus.gov.in/</a> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong>*</strong> NCEUS (2007), Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><strong>OVERVIEW</strong> </span></div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Despite a consistently high GDP growth rate, India is not able to generate even a fraction of new job its rural folks require. The new job creation is restricted to higher end service sector areas like finance, insurance, IT and IT Enable Services (ITES) rather than in manufacturing and infrastructure where the low-skill rural migrants hope to find work. A combination of sluggish village economy, stagnation in rural crafts and cottage industry, falling farm incomes and poor human development indicators (HDI) is a perfect recipe for more rural unemployment and more distress migration to cities.&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Even before the recession started, creation of new jobs had hit negative growth. Nine out of ten people in the trillion-dollar economy work in the unorganized sector and three fourths of all Indians live on Rs 20 a day, according to the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). Many economists argue that migration from villages to cities is a necessary condition for growth. However, India&#39;s &#39;low cost advantage&#39; in the global market ensures low earnings which fail to kick off the growth cycle of reasonable purchasing power creating more domestic demand and finally leading to more job creation.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Numbers show that instead of &lsquo;getting there&rsquo; we could be moving in the opposite direction. For instance the rate of unemployment rose by 1 percentage point in the decade between 1994 and 2005. Among rural males the proportion of self-employed has also fallen by four percentage points between early eighties and 2005. This spells doom for work participation of rural poor in the face of falling employment.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Figures also show that the situation is unchanged or worsened for rural females since the early eighties. Over 45 percent of the farmers&rsquo; meager incomes come from rural non-farm employment (RNFE), which, in effect, is another name for casual labour. The wages are typically low because the farmer has to take whatever work he can get in the vicinity of his village. Right now only 57 percent of the farmers are self employed and above 36 percent are wage workers, of which 98 percent are engaged as casual labour.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p>The present report &#39;<a href="/upload/files/Crushed%202022%20report%204th%20edition.pdf">Crushed 2022</a>&#39;, Safe in India Foundation&#39;s (SII) annual report on the state of worker safety in the Indian auto sector, is based on the following data:</p>

<p>&bull; First-hand data from 6+ years of SII&rsquo;s operations and on 4,000+ injured workers in the auto-sector hubs in Haryana (Gurgaon and Faridabad) and more recently in Maharashtra.</p>

<p>&bull; Data from a time-limited national survey of a few auto-sector hubs in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand.</p>

<p>&bull; Both of the above exercises covering accidents in the deeper supply chains of 20+ national auto brands.</p>

<p>&bull; Secondary data on worker injuries from the official data sources, such as the Directorate General Factory Advice Service &amp; Labour Institutes (DG FASLI)-published factory accident numbers across India.</p>

<p>The key findings of Safe in India Foundation&#39;s report [inside]Crushed 2022, 4th edition (released on 13th December 2022)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/Crushed%202022%20report%204th%20edition.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p>&bull; Thousands of workers continue to lose their hands/ fingers in the auto-sector supply chain nationally</p>

<p>&bull; It&rsquo;s a national problem and supply chains of all top 10 large auto sector brands contribute to these crush injuries. A national coordinated industry action is needed.</p>

<p>&bull; Top contributors in states covered in this report are: In Haryana (Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, and Honda); in Pune, Maharashtra (TATA and Mahindra); in Chennai, Tamil Nadu (TVS, Ashok Leyland, and TATA); in Karnataka (Toyota, TATA, and Ashok Leyland); In Rudrapur, Uttarakhand (TATA, Bajaj, and Mahindra) and in Neemrana, Rajasthan (Honda, Maruti Suzuki, and Hero).</p>

<p>&bull; Official accident numbers are a fraction of those assisted by only SII every year in Haryana (and potentially in other states); the problem is much worse in reality than officially recorded.</p>

<p>&bull; The severity of injuries in factory accidents in Pune appears to be worse than Haryana.</p>

<p>&bull; A large number of injuries on machines happen to helpers, who, legally, should not even be operating these machines.</p>

<p>&bull; Overworked&nbsp;and not fully paid for overtime.</p>

<p>&bull; Over 80 percent of injured workers from Haryana reported working on machines without safety sensors at the time of accident and power press machines on which they were injured were operating without the required inspection.</p>

<p>&bull; A typical crush injury to fingers results in the loss of two fingers per injured worker; about 60-70 percent injured workers still report loss of body parts, indicating continued dangerous working conditions.</p>

<p>&bull; ESIC (national insurance) woes: 60-70 percent of injured auto sector workers receive their ESIC e-Pehchaan (identity) card only after an accident even though employers collect contribution amounts regularly.</p>

<p>&bull; Most of the injured workers were first taken to private hospitals and only later to ESIC hospitals in both Haryana and Maharashtra-though the latter appears to be better of the two in this.</p>

<p>&bull; Haryana and Maharashtra state&rsquo;s factory inspections have been near consistently reducing for years; when reported, penalties are not enough to be a deterrent.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Top five operational recommendations:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Boards to take responsibility for worker safety in their deeper supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Create a joint industry-level task force with SIAM (with some participation from SII).</p>

<p>&bull; Map the deeper supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Improve transparency and accountability of accident reporting in the supply chain, weed out habitual offenders and reward safest factories, commercially.</p>

<p>&bull; Initiate ground-level actions, e.g., honest worker safety audits and worker training.</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Top five policy recommendations:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Include all contract workers in their own factories in the OSH Policy statement at par with permanent workers.</p>

<p>&bull; Create, publish, and implement a Supplier Code of Conduct (SCoC).</p>

<p>&bull; Create, publish, and implement a standard operating procedure (SOP) for supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Report annually on Indicator 8.8 of SDG-8 (the only SDG indicator about worker safety).</p>

<p>&bull; Demand minimum compliance from the supply chains (e.g., all workers should be covered by ESIC from their first workday).</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Operational recommendations to the central and state government:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of Corporate Affairs for leading efforts to improve business responsibility reporting and for transparent monitoring systems.</p>

<p>&bull; Niti Ayog for leading efforts to ensure OSH is prioritized in the country, including by leveraging their tech capabilities.</p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of MSME for leading efforts to link worker safety to productivity, professionalism, and quality.</p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of Industry for coordinating with the Ministry of MSME and MOLE on regulatory and worker support mechanisms and worker-related information.</p>

<p>&bull; SEBI for improving ESG reporting and making companies more accountable for quality reporting.</p>

<p>&bull; National Skill Development Council for strengthening focus on worker skills and OSH skills.</p>

<p><strong>Ministry of Labour and Employment</strong> and <strong>Department of Labour</strong> in states: Drive actions to achieve OSH policy objectives and lead on monitoring efforts</p>

<p>&bull; Drive calibrated actions to achieve the objectives of the OSH Policy, 2009.</p>

<p>&bull; Leverage ESIC data to inform factory inspections; conduct safety surveys.</p>

<p>&bull; Create a reliable accident/injury reporting and governance system, and use it for constant continuing improvements.</p>

<p>&bull; Set up a confidential helpline for workers to report unsafe conditions/factory accidents.</p>

<p>&bull; Introduce a practical policy and mechanism for safety training of contract and migrant workers.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the study titled [inside]Accessing Minimum Wages: Evidence from Delhi (released on July 4, 2022)[/inside], which has been prepared by Working Peoples&#39; Coalition, are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/WPC_Access%20to%20Minimum%20Wage%20in%20Delhi%20Report.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; This study was conceptualized by the Delhi Chapter of the Working Peoples&rsquo; Coalition (WPC) and was guided by the vast experiences of Delhi Shramik Sanghatan, Janpahal, Gram Vaani, Yuva and Basti Suraksha Manch. This study attempts to highlight the violations of basic workers&rsquo; rights despite the Delhi government&rsquo;s initial attempts to deal with it positively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A survey of 1,076 workers show that more than 50 percent of men workers are working across all industries, whereas women workers are concentrated mainly in domestic work and the construction sector.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the months of January and February 2022, the study was conducted in Delhi region covering four sub-sectors (i.e., industrial, domestic work, construction and security work) of unorganized economy that employs women, unskilled, contractual and migrant workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Two-third of the youths surveyed are deriving their wages from the unorganized sector.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Over 60 percent of workers have below the primary level of education which would constrain their labour market mobility and deprive them of accessing skill development opportunities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Around 64 percent of workers had migrated from their hometowns in search of livelihood in Delhi. About 8 percent of the migrant workers are part of circular migration due to the seasonality of industries.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Approximately, 40 percent of workers are in domestic work, 16 percent in industry, 33 percent in construction and 11 percent as security workers in Delhi.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Most workers stay in low-wage-low-productive sectors with bare minimum earnings.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 5 percent of workers are receiving stipulated minimum wages and 95 percent are compelled to accept the wages offered by their employers (and the wage levels are not at par with the wage levels as recommended by the regulatory bodies).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; It is found that 95 percent of workers despite having the required skill sets are not being paid a statutory minimum wage as stipulated by the Government of Delhi.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; More than two-third of workers are not aware of the laws that strengthen their right to receive decent wages and 98 percent of workers do not receive pay slips.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The study finds that 98 percent of female workers and 95 percent of male workers receive wages below the stipulated minimum wages.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Over 90 percent of workers despite working tirelessly are deprived of their social security benefits.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; More than two-third of workers (over 75 percent) work in indecent working environments without sufficient facilities and insecure work site premises, which could lead to unhealthy industrial relations and welfare losses for workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The &lsquo;Taking the Temperature&rsquo; research is a first-of-its-kind, landmark longitudinal report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on India&#39;s creative economy.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/final_ttt3_report_web.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 3: A roadmap for recovery: governance, infrastructure, and self-reliance[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. Direct input to this final report has been provided by the Smart Cube consultancy.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the third and final &#39;Taking the Temperature&#39; report of a three-phased study. The report provides a consolidated mapping, through three consecutive surveys, of how India&#39;s culture sector has been responding to the pandemic and related lockdowns from March 2020 to November 2021.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>The report provides robust insight on the:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">size of the creative economy to India&#39;s GDP and the scale of the current recession in the creative industries precipitated by the pandemic</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">depth and scale of impact of the pandemic and the crisis in creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">comparisons, developments and changes over a sustained period from March 2020 to November 2021</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">changes being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">recommendations needed for emergency and long-term development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">It provides a comparison of the situation in India since the outbreak of Covid-19, the consequent national lockdown (March-June, 2020), the period following relaxation of the lockdown (July-October, 2020) and reports on the second devastating wave of the pandemic (April-June, 2021).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/ttt2_report_un_year_of_creative_economy_aug_2021_0.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 2: The deepening impact of COVID-19 on India&rsquo;s creative economy[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. The report provides valuable insight on:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">the depth and scale of impact of the pandemic on creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists, managers and stakeholders</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">comparisons, developments and changes over a sustained period from March 2020 to October 2020</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">systemic actions being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19, and</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">the recommendations for future development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the second edition of the report. It provides a comparison of the situation in India since the outbreak of COVID-19, the consequent national lockdown (March-June) and the period following relaxation of the lockdown (July-October).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/ttt_report_1_0.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 1: Impact of Covid-19 on India&rsquo;s Creative Economy[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. The report provides valuable insights on:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">on the impact of the pandemic on creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists, managers and stakeholders.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">by tracing and reporting developments, and change over a sustained period, initially to October 2020.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">on systemic actions being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">by making recommendations for the future development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the first edition of the report; it provides a snapshot of the situation in India since the outbreak of Covid-19 and the consequent lockdown, from late March 2020 up until early June 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The present report &#39;<a href="/upload/files/CRUSHED%202021%20Upload%2025%20Jan%202022.pdf" target="_blank">Crushed 2021</a>&#39;, Safe in India Foundation&#39;s (SII) annual report on the state of worker safety in the Indian auto sector, further develops the case for systemic action with:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Data across 5 years and on 2500+ injured workers from the auto sector.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Assessment of other auto-sector hubs in Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand, and case studies from Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Multivariate data analysis to improve understanding of accidents and injuries.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Establishing urgency of focus on the &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo; power press and legal violations that result in over 50 percent of these accidents.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Top 5 recommendations to the auto-sector original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), Society of Indian Auto Manufacturers (SIAM), Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), and the government.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of Safe in India Foundation&#39;s report [inside]Crushed 2021, 3rd edition (released on 26th January, 2022)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/CRUSHED%202021%20Upload%2025%20Jan%202022%281%29.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a> to access):</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">80 percent of the injured workers met with accidents in the supply chains of some of the largest auto-sector brands;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">70 percent lost their hands/ fingers;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">1.97 fingers on average lost to a crush injury;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">92 percent migrant workers; 81 percent educated only up to grade 10;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">71 percent earned less than Rs. 10,000 a month (many with no overtime pay despite ~12-hour shifts); 70 percent on contract; 62 percent under 30;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The lower the salary and education of a worker, the worse the injury;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">About 70 percent received their ESIC Identity Card after the accident and not on the date of joining. These workers/ families could not use ESIC through their working lives, until they suffered grave injuries;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, Honda suppliers remain the largest contributors to accidents in Gurugram (93 percent) and Faridabad (75 percent). Bajaj, Eicher, JCB, Tata Motors, TVS, Yamaha suppliers also significant contributors in Gurugram, Faridabad, Rudrapur, Neemrana;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Not just a small MSME problem: accidents in 22 percent of ACMA members (some of the largest factories/suppliers);</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The auto sector has the muscle/influence to prevent accidents and push up Indian labour productivity from its current rank of 115th in the world;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Haryana factory inspections have largely been reduced for years. Penalties for infractions to the Factories Act are rarely imposed and are in any case insignificant to change factory owners&rsquo; behaviours;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH &amp; WC) labour code has at least 8 major dilutions of factory safety;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Over 50 percent injuries reported to SII occur on power press machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Two times probability of losing fingers on a power press machine; a worker loses half a finger more to a power press than other machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the workers injured on power presses inadequately trained and have low education levels;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Young and old workers lose fingers equally on power presses; experience does not seem to make up for unsafe machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the crush injuries were on power presses that should have had safety sensors but did not; other required PPE also often missing;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Most factories violate many extant regulations; potential criminal offenses.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<ul>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five operational recommendations to OEMs in the CRUSHED series of reports:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">OEM boards to take responsibility for worker safety in their deeper supply chain.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create a joint industry-level task force with SIAM (with some participation from SII).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Map their deeper supply chain.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Improve transparency and accountability of accident reporting in the supply chain, weed out habitual offenders and reward safest factories, commercially.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Initiate ground-level actions, e.g., honest worker safety audits and worker training.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five policy recommendations to OEMs as reported in SafetyNiti 2021 of SII:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Include all contract workers in own factories in their OSH Policy framework.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create, publish, and implement a Supplier Code of Conduct.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create, publish, and implement a Standard Operating Procedure for supply chain factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Report annually on SDG8.8 (the only SDG about worker safety).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Demand minimum compliance from their supply chains. (e.g. all workers should be covered by ESIC from their first work day).</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five operational recommendations to the central and state government (labour code/rules recommendations not covered in this report)</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Drive calibrated actions to achieve the objectives of the OSH Policy, 2009.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Use accident/ injury data from ESIC to determine selection of factories for inspection and conduct safety surveys.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create a reliable accident/injury reporting and governance system, and use it for ongoing improvements.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Set up a confidential helpline for workers to report unsafe working conditions and accidents in factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Develop a practical policy and mechanism for safety training of contract and migrant workers.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>KEY OBSERVATIONS (in detail):</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Thousands of workers continue to lose their hands/ fingers (&ldquo;crush injuries&rdquo;) every year in the Indian auto sector.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">80 percent of all SII-assisted injured workers are from auto-component factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of these injured workers are the most marginalised and vulnerable.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A typical crush injury to fingers results in the loss of almost two (1.97) fingers per injured worker.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">70 percent of injured workers get their ESIC &ldquo;e-Pehchaan&rdquo; Card only after the accident (not on the day of joining the job, as they should).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The lower the salary and education &ndash; the worse the injury!</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">About half of the injured workers reported shift timings more than 12 hours, and were often not paid for overtime at the legal rates, in violation of the Factories Act.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The Indian auto sector is critical to not only the Indian economy and manufacturing, now and in the future, but also to the lives, working conditions, and productivity of millions of Indian workers.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Crush injuries in the auto sector continue in the thousands - nationally.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Although accidents in Gurugram appear to have recently reduced (potentially due to disruption in production during Covid), the situation in Faridabad appears to be worse than Gurugram.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) and Neemrana (Rajasthan), two relatively smaller auto-sector hubs, too, have high incidence of injuries in their auto-component factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Top 3 responsible OEMs: In Gurugram and Faridabad, suppliers to Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, and Honda continue to be the largest contributors to these accidents.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Other than the above top 3 responsible OEMs, JCB, Tata Motors, Yamaha, Eicher, TVS, and Bajaj are also significant contributors to accidents in Gurugram, Faridabad, Rudrapur, and Neemrana.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">ACMA members (some of the largest factories/ suppliers) continue to have 22 percent of all accidents in Gurugram; it is not just a small factory problem.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Worker accidents have been under-reported for decades: Haryana state-reported accident numbers are not even 5 percent of reality.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Haryana state&rsquo;s factory inspections have been reducing for years (though marginal improvement seen in 2018/19).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Anecdotal feedback shared by workers also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of factory audits.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The penalties for Factories Act infractions are rarely imposed and are in any case insignificant to change factory owners&rsquo; behaviours.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The new OSH &amp; WC labour code may make factory safety worse.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the crush injuries reported to SII happen on power press machines; press machines in Faridabad are worse than those in Gurugram.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Power presses are essential in the supply chain of all auto sector brands.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The probability of losing fingers on a power press machine is twice as much as other machines, and a worker loses half a finger more on a power press machine accident than on other machines.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Both young and old workers lose fingers equally on these power presses; experience does not seem to make up for unsafe machines.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Despite power presses being &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo;, most workers injured on power presses were inadequately trained and had low education levels.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of these crush injuries happened on power presses that should have had safety sensors but did not; in most cases, other required PPE was also missing.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A multitude of violations of extant rules and regulations for power presses; many would be potential criminal offences.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">These accidents can be significantly reduced with small investments, leading also to savings/ productivity gains.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/Mercer%20primer-new-labour-codes.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a> to access the [inside]Primer on Labour Codes in India (released in January, 2022)[/inside], which has been prepared by Mercer Consulting.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Domestic%20Work%20is%20Work%20CHRI%202021.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> titled [inside]Domestic Work is Work by Commonwealth Health Rights Initiative-CHRI (released on 10th December,2021)[/inside] explores the situation of domestic workers and the status of ratification of C189 in specific Commonwealth countries. It includes five Commonwealth nations that have yet to ratify C189: United Kingdom, Uganda, India, Papua New Guinea, and Dominica. These countries were selected because their governments have either committed to ratifying C189, are considering ratification, or face mounting local civil society pressure to ratify - all suggesting some momentum for change. Each case study focuses on the challenges facing domestic workers and explores actions that both governments and civil society can take to support domestic workers and promote C189.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Domestic%20Work%20is%20Work%20CHRI%202021.pdf" target="_blank">report by CHRI</a> also includes two additional case studies - countries that have shown their commitment to protecting the rights of domestic workers and advancing decent work for all by ratifying C189: Jamaica and South Africa. These stories of good practice provide insights into lessons learnt for effective civil society advocacy and government collaboration. The ratification stories of Jamaica and South Africa also exemplify the power of strategic grassroots advocacy for bringing about essential change.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Key Recommendations</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Civil society and advocates can take the following key actions to complement state actions and to promote the ratification of C189 and the rights of domestic workers in their countries:<br />
&nbsp;<br />
* Collaborate with domestic workers and organisations led by domestic workers to inform responsive and effective advocacy and promote the ability of domestic workers to organise collectively and join trade unions<br />
* Engage key decision makers who can push for the ratification and implementation of C189<br />
* Utilise key dates as opportunities to strategically advocate for the ratification and implementation of C189<br />
* Promote the ratification of C189 and its provisions through public awareness raising, education and campaigns<br />
* Increase capacity for research and data collection on the situation of domestic workers<br />
* Promote the right to information to enhance advocacy efforts<br />
* Join international, &nbsp;and regional and national civil society coalitions and networks<br />
* Support aid services for domestic workers<br />
* Raise concerns with international and regional human rights mechanisms and experts</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong><br />
The key findings of the [inside]Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2021: Pension reform in challenging times (released in October, 2021)&nbsp;[/inside] are as follows (please click <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Mercer.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.uk.mercer.com/our-thinking/global-pension-index-2021.html">here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2021 benchmarks 43 retirement income systems around the world, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. In 2021, new entrant Iceland is named as having the world&rsquo;s best pension system overall. However, as the world continues to grapple with the economic implications of the pandemic and its ongoing health crisis, the study also reveals factors causing the gender pension gap around the world. It&rsquo;s critical that policymakers and governments reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their systems to deliver better long-term outcomes for future retirees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India&rsquo;s retirement income system comprises an earnings-related employee pension scheme, a defined contribution employee provident fund, and supplementary employer managed pension schemes that are largely defined contribution in nature.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Government schemes have been launched as part of universal social security program aimed at benefiting the unorganised sector. The EPFO&rsquo;s schemes continue to be the primary one for the organized sector. The National Pension System is gradually gaining popularity.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India (along with Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Philippines, Argentina and Thailand) has a pension system that has some desirable features, but also has major weaknesses and/or omissions that need to be addressed. Without these improvements, its efficacy and sustainability are in doubt.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2021, India ranks 40th in overall index out of 43 pension systems.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Indian index value decreased from 45.7 in 2020 to 43.3 in 2021 primarily due to a fall in the net replacement rates. According to the <a href="https://data.oecd.org/pension/net-pension-replacement-rates.htm">OECD</a>, the &#39;net replacement rate&#39; is defined as the individual net pension entitlement divided by net pre-retirement earnings, taking into account personal income taxes and social security contributions paid by workers and pensioners. The sub-index value for &#39;adequency&#39; fell from 38.8 in 2020 to 33.5 in 2021. The sub-index value for &#39;sustainability&#39; decreased from 43.1 in 2020 to 41.8 in 2021. The sub-index value for &#39;integrity&#39; increased from 60.3 in 2020 to 61.0 in 2021. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the case of India, the sub-indices values for &#39;adequacy&#39;, &#39;sustainablity&#39; and &#39;integrity&#39; are 33.5, 41.8 and 61.0 during 2021, respectively. The &#39;adequacy&#39; sub-index represents the benefits that are being provided together with some important system design features. The &#39;adequacy&#39; sub-index covers Benefits, System design, Savings, Government support, Home ownership and Growth assets. The &#39;sustainability&#39; sub-index has a focus on the future and measures various indicators, which will influence the likelihood that the current system is able to provide benefits in the future. The &#39;sustainability&#39; sub-index covers Pension coverage, Total assets, Demography, Public expenditure, Government debt and Economic growth. The &#39;integrity&#39; sub-index includes many legislative requirements that influence the overall governance and operations of the system, which affect the level of confidence that citizens have in their system. The &#39;integrity&#39; sub-index covers Regulation, Governance, Protection, Communication and Operating costs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2021, India has received the overall index value/ grade of &#39;D&#39;. For &#39;adequacy&#39;, &#39;sustainablity&#39; and &#39;integrity&#39;, it has got the grades &nbsp;&#39;E&#39;, &#39;D&#39; and &#39;C+&#39;, respectively. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Pension system (and overall index value): Argentina (41.5), Australia (75.0), Austria (53.0), Belgium (64.5), Brazil (54.7), Canada (69.8), Chile (67.0), China (55.1), Colombia (58.4), Denmark (82.0), Finland (73.3), France (60.5), Germany (67.9), &nbsp;Hong Kong SAR (61.8), Iceland (84.2), India (43.3), Indonesia (50.4), Ireland (68.3), Israel (77.1), Italy (53.4), Japan (49.8), Korea (48.3), Malaysia (59.6), Mexico (49.0), Netherlands (83.5), New Zealand (67.4), Norway (75.2), Peru (55.0), Philippines (42.7), Poland (55.2), Saudi Arabia (58.1), Singapore (70.7), South Africa (53.6), Spain (58.6), Sweden (72.9), Switzerland (70.0), Taiwan (51.8), Thailand (40.6), Turkey (45.8), United Arab Emirates (59.6), United Kingdom (71.6), Uruguay (60.7), United States of America (61.4).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The overall index value for the Indian system could be increased by:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">-- introducing a minimum level of support for the poorest aged individuals<br />
-- increasing coverage of pension arrangements for the unorganised working class<br />
-- introducing a minimum access age so that it is clear that benefits are preserved for retirement purposes<br />
-- improving the regulatory requirements for the private pension system</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The systems with the highest value for the adequacy sub-index are Iceland (82.7) and the Netherlands (82.1), with Thailand (35.2) and India (33.5) having the lowest values. While several indicators influence these scores, the level of the minimum pension (expressed as a percentage of the average wage) and the net replacement rate for a range of incomes are the most important.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The minimum pension ranges from less than 5 percent of the average wage in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Uruguay to 35 per cent or more in Brazil, Denmark, Iceland and New Zealand. Indonesia does not provide a minimum pension.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The rates of coverage for private pension plans ranged from nil in Argentina and about six percent in India to more than 80 percent of the working age population in Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Taiwan.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="/upload/files/OCCASIONAL-PAPER-SERIES-10-final.pdf">study</a> titled [inside]Is Platform Work Decent Work? A Case of Food Delivery Workers in Karnataka (released on 8th September, 2021)[/inside], which was published by the National Law School of India University (Bangalore), is a contribution to the understanding of jobs in the platform economy or gig economy. It attempts to examine the earnings of platform workers and explores their experiences on the job in Bengaluru. The <a href="/upload/files/OCCASIONAL-PAPER-SERIES-10-final.pdf">study</a> documented below the minimum wage earnings despite long work hours well beyond 8 hours on average per day for most platform workers engaged in various food delivery platforms in Karnataka.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Labour and employment related statistics and data are collected, compiled and disseminated by several agencies in India. The Ministry of Labour and Employment through the office of Labour Bureau is an important agency involved in this task. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation is another major source, which collects and publishes data on this subject through its various divisions. Besides these two, the State Governments also collect labour statistics, mostly through the Department of Labour &amp; Directorate of Economics &amp; Statistics.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">It is worth noting that the household based employment surveys (like PLFS by MoSPI) being conducted in the country are providing employment scenario for the supply side of labour market. A consolidated picture of employment from demand side at regular intervals is also required for policy planning. For the latter purpose, we need establishment based census and sample surveys. The All India Quarterly establishment based Employment survey (AQEES) has been started to fulfill the above mentioned gap. The AQEES will provide estimates of employment, vacancies, training and other related parameters for major nine sectors of the economy. This report is a component of AQEES covering establishments with at least 10 workers. The other component, AFES, will capture information about establishments with less than 10 workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Labour Bureau has been entrusted with the task of conducting the All India Quarterly Establishment based Employment Survey (AQEES). The AQEES has two components namely Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) in respect of establishments employing 10 or more workers (mostly constituting &lsquo;organised&rsquo; segment) and Area Frame Establishment Survey (AFES) to build up a frame in respect of establishments (mostly the &lsquo;unorganised&rsquo; segment) employing 9 or less workers. After, a period of one year or initial round of AFES, the results from the 4th QES round will be merged with the findings of AFES so as to get a consolidated picture of employment scenario in respect of establishments employing 9 or less workers as also establishments with 10 or more workers. AQEES will cover all non-farm activities except division 01, 02, &amp; 03 of NIC-2008.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">In order to generate high quality accessible data on labour market for effective implementation of policies and welfare of labour, the Government of India has decided to conduct Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) to assess employment situation in respect of selected nine sectors of Non-farm economy of India over successive quarters. The selected nine sectors are Manufacturing, Construction, Trade, Transport, Education, Health, Accommodation &amp; Restaurants, Information Technology (IT)/ Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) and Financial Services. The present Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) is the 1st in the series with large sample covering 9 major sectors.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The scope of the present QES is limited only to establishments having 10 or more persons (Organized Segment) as identified by the Sixth Economic Census (2013-14). The scope &amp; coverage of AQEES and, hence, of QES is further limited to employment in non-farm economy covering nine sectors viz. Manufacturing, Construction, Trade, Transport, Education, Health, Accommodation &amp; Restaurants, IT/BPO and Financial Service Activities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/QES%201st%20Round.pdf">report</a> of this survey contains detailed information on employment situation as on 1st April, 2021 in respect of 1st Round at national level in nine selected sectors. It provides information on important characteristics of employment such as gender-wise employment, regular or contract and casual basis and part-time or full-time workers, number of vacancies, skill development programme conducted and on the job training provided by the establishment.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The list of all these establishments, as appearing in the Directory of Establishments, in the above mentioned nine major sectors in Sixth Economic Census (EC), was used as the sampling frame for the present QES survey. The aforesaid nine sectors account for around 85 percent of the total employment in units with 10 or more workers in the 6th EC.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Report on the First Round of Quarterly Employment Survey under the AQEES (released in September, 2021)[/inside], which has been produced by the Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment, are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/QES%201st%20Round.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The estimated total employment in the nine selected sectors from the first round of QES works out as 3 crores and 8 lakhs approximately against a total of 2 crores and 37 lakhs in these sectors taken collectively, as reported in the Sixth Economic Census (2013-14), implying a growth of 29 percent. Of the total employment estimated in the selected nine sectors, Manufacturing accounts for nearly 41 percent, followed by Education with 22 percent, and Health 8 percent. Trade and IT/ BPO engaged 7 percent of the total estimated number of workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The most impressive growth of 152 percent has been recorded in the IT/ BPO sector, while growth rates in Health 77 percent, Financial Services 48 percent, Education 39 percent, Manufacturing 22 percent, Transport 68 percent and Construction 42 percent were also quite significant. However, employment in Trade came down by 25 percent and in Accommodation &amp; Restaurant the decline was by 13 percent. Nearly 90 percent of the establishments have been estimated to work with less than 100 workers, though 34.8 percent of the IT/ BPO establishments worked with at least 100 workers, including about 13.8 percent engaging 500 workers or more. In the Health sector, 18 percent of the establishments had 100 or more workers. It may be mentioned that 95 percent of the establishments were reported to working with less than 100 workers in the Sixth Economic Census. And in the IT/ BPO sector the figures during 2013-14 for the size classes 100 or more and 500 or more stood at 19 and 6 respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The over-all percentage of female workers stood at 29, slightly lower than 31 reported during 6th EC.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Regular workers constitute 88 percent of the estimated workforce in the nine selected sectors, with only 2 percent being casual workers. However, 18 percent of workers in the Construction sector are contractual employees and 13 percent are casual workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 97 percent of the establishments were located outside households in fixed structures, though 4 percent of units in IT/ BPO sector were found to operate from within households.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 9 percent of the establishments (with at least 10 workers) were not registered with any authority or under any act. While 26 percent of all the establishments were registered under the Companies Act, this percentage was as high as 71 in IT / BPO, 58 in Construction, 46 in Manufacturing, 42 in Transport, 35 in Trade and 28 in Financial services. One-fourth of the establishments were operating as registered societies, 41 percent were registered under Excise and 30 percent under Shops and Establishments Act.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Looking at the educational qualifications of employees, it came out that 31 percent of those working in seven of the nine sectors (excluding Education and Health) were matriculates/ secondary or less educated, while another 31 percent were graduates or had higher qualifications. In fact, the latter percentage is as high as 70 in the IT/BPO sector and 59 in Financial Services. In the Health sector, as few as 22 percent of the non-Clinical workers were matriculates/ secondary or less educated, the figure being 15 percent in the non-Teaching staff in the Education sector. More than one-third of the employees in these two sectors were at least graduates.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; It is somewhat encouraging to note that 18 percent of the establishments provide formal skill development programmes, mostly for their own employees, though. It transpired that an estimated 3.6 percent of the establishments were having vacancies in positions and the estimated number of vacancies was a little over one lakh 87 thousand. And about 39 percent of such vacancies were not due to retirement or resignation of employees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Coming to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on employment in the organized non-farm segment of the Indian economy, employment decreased due to the pandemic in 27 percent of the establishments. On the bright side of the employment scenario, it may be noted that 81 percent of the workers received full wages during the lock-down period (March 25-June 30, 2020), 16 percent received reduced wages and only 3 percent were denied of any wages. In the Health and Financial Services sector, however, more than 90 percent workers received full wages. However, in the Construction sector, 27 percent had to accept reduced wages and 7 percent were left with none.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">While using the QES estimates the following points have to be kept in mind:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>QES does not capture employment data from units which emerged after the 6thEconomic Census in 2013-14.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>The survey work for the first quarter of QES corresponds to the period of second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and in view of the surge in covid-19 cases across the country several lockdown restrictions were imposed by respective State/ UT authorities. Therefore, data collection was mainly carried out telephonically and through visits by investigators wherever possible.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>The survey is based on either records or responses of the establishment. However, verification of records has not been resorted to for collection of data.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>If an individual who is working in more than one establishment on a given reference date the worker is counted separately for each establishment giving rise to possible duplication.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
The objectives of Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) are:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* to estimate the key employment and unemployment indicators (viz. Worker Population Ratio, Labour Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate) in the short time interval of three months for the urban areas only in the Current Weekly Status (CWS).&nbsp;</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* to estimate employment and unemployment indicators in both usual status (ps+ss) and CWS in both rural and urban areas annually.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">first Annual Report (July 2017-June 2018)</a> on the basis of Periodic Labour Force Survey covering both rural and urban areas giving estimates of all important parameters of employment and unemployment in both usual status (ps+ss) and current weekly status (CWS) was released on May 2019 and the <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/annual-report-on-periodic-labour-force-survey-july-2018-june-2019.pdf">second Annual Report (July 2018-June 2019)</a> was released on June 2020. This is the third Annual Report being brought out by National Statistical Office (NSO) on the basis of Periodic Labour Force Survey conducted during July 2019-June 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Out of the total number of 12,800 First Stage Units-FSUs (7,024 villages and 5,776 Urban Frame Survey-UFS blocks) allotted for the survey at the all-India level during July 2019-June 2020, a total of 12,569 FSUs (6,913 villages in rural areas and 5,656 urban blocks) could be surveyed for canvassing the PLFS schedule (Schedule 10.4). The number of households surveyed was 1,00,480 (55,291 in rural areas and 45,189 in urban areas) and number of persons surveyed was 4,18,297 (2,40,231 in rural areas and 1,78,066 in urban areas).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The survey covered the whole of the Indian Union except the villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which remained extremely difficult to access throughout the year.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The fieldwork of PLFS was suspended from 18th March, 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic. The fieldwork of the pending FSUs for January-March 2020 and the field work of FSUs allotted for canvassing during April&ndash;June, 2020 were resumed on 1st June 2020. Although schedules were canvassed later, the information was asked with respect to the actual reference period which would have been adopted if there were no pandemic. Thus, there was no break in the flow of information collected for any quarter except that informants were approached at a later date due to the unavoidable situation. On resumption of fieldwork in June 2020, the field officials were advised that the canvassing of revisit schedules was to be undertaken telephonically, as per actual reference periods of samples, in the original paper revisit schedules. The telephonic mode was adopted for revisit Schedules in order to minimise the physical interaction with informants so as to contain spread of COVID virus and to cope up with pandemic related restrictions.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report of the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2019-20 (released on 23rd July, 2021)[/inside] prepared by the National Statistical Office (NSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), are as follows (please click <a href="/upload/files/Annual_Report_PLFS_2019_20.pdf">here</a> and <a href="/upload/files/Press_note_AR_PLFS_2019_20.pdf">here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Households and Population</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 53.2 percent of rural households (i.e. households with major source of income) were in self-employment, 12.9 percent of them were in regular wage/ salary earning jobs and 24.8 percent were in casual labour jobs. On the contrary, nearly 30.7 percent of urban households (i.e. households with major source of income) were in self-employment, 43.1 percent of them were in regular wage/ salary earning jobs and 11.5 percent were in casual labour jobs.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Labour Force in usual status (ps+ss)</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) in India in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 40.1 percent. In rural areas, the male LFPR was 56.3 percent and the female LFPR was 24.7 percent. In urban areas, the male LFPR was 57.8 percent and the female LFPR was 18.5 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The LFPR for persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 41.3 percent in rural areas, 40.0 percent in urban areas and 40.9 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The LFPR for persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 55.5 percent in rural areas, 49.3 percent in urban areas and 53.5 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Workforce</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) in India in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 38.2 percent. In rural areas, the male WPR was 53.8 percent and the female WPR was 24.0 percent. In urban areas, the male WPR was 54.1 percent and the female WPR was 16.8 percent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR for persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 35.9 percent in rural areas, 32.1 percent in urban areas and 34.7 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR for persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 53.3 percent in rural areas, 45.8 percent in urban areas and 50.9 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of self-employed among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 58.4 percent for rural males, 63.0 percent for rural females, 38.7 percent for urban males and 34.6 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of regular wage/ salaried employees among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 13.8 percent for rural males, 9.5 percent for rural females, 47.2 percent for urban males and 54.2 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of casual labour among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 27.8 percent for rural males, 27.5 percent for rural females, 14.1 percent for urban males and 11.1 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural male workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 55.4 percent, in construction sector was 15.0 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 9.2 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural female workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 75.7 percent, in construction sector was 5.6 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 3.7 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 61.5 percent, in construction sector was 12.2 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 7.6 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of urban male workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 28.9 percent, in manufacturing sector was 20.3 percent, in construction sector was 12.0 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 12.1 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of urban female workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 22.3 percent, in manufacturing sector was 22.4 percent, in construction sector was 4.9 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 3.6 percent.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&bull; The share of urban workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 27.4 percent, in manufacturing sector was 20.8 percent, in construction sector was 10.3 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 10.2 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Unemployment Rate in usual status (ps+ss)</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate in India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 4.8 percent. The unemployment rate in rural India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 4.5 percent for males and 2.6 percent for females. The unemployment rate in urban India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 6.4 percent for males and 8.9 percent for females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate for educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 10.1 percent. The unemployment rate for educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 9.9 percent in rural areas and 10.3 percent in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 15.0 percent. The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) in rural areas was 13.8 percent for males and 10.3 percent for females. The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) in urban areas was 18.2 percent for males and 24.9 percent for females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Earnings from employment, hours worked and hours available for additional work</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The range of earnings for regular wage/ salaried employees [in Current Weekly Status-CWS] during preceding calendar month in the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 13,900-Rs. 14,300 for rural males, Rs. 8,500-Rs. 12,100 for rural females, Rs. 19,200-Rs. 21,600 for urban males and Rs. 15,300-Rs. 17,300 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average wage earning per day by casual labour engaged in work other than public works during the reference week of the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 297-Rs. 315 for rural males, Rs. 185-Rs. 209 for rural females, Rs. 375-Rs. 391 for urban males and Rs. 243-Rs. 265 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average gross earnings during last 30 days from self employment work by self-employed workers in CWS in the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 9,200-Rs. 10,100 for rural males, Rs. 4,600-Rs. 5,000 for rural females, Rs. 14,500-Rs. 17,800 for urban males and Rs. 6,900-Rs. 7,700 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average hours actually worked in a week by a worker in CWS during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was in the range 37 hours&ndash;48 hours. The average hours actually worked in a week by a worker in CWS during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was in the range 39 hours&ndash;46 hours in rural areas and 30 hours&ndash;54 hours in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The percentage of workers (range) in CWS who reported that they were available for additional work during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was 1.3 percent-3.3 percent in rural areas and 1.1 percent-2.2 percent in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of hours available for additional work (range) in a week for workers in CWS who reported that they were available for additional work during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was 11.9 hours-14.2 hours in rural areas and 11.7 hours-18.8 hours in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Informal Sector</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Around 72.9 percent of male workers, 56.5 percent of female workers and 69.5 percent of all workers in usual status (ps+ss) are engaged in informal non-agricultural sector in India. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Conditions of Employment</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 68.1 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 65.0 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 67.3 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector had no job contract in India.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 53.1 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 49.8 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 52.3 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector were not eligible for paid leave in India.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Roughly 53.6 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 56.0 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 54.2 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector were not eligible for any social security in India.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Definitions of Key Employment and Unemployment Indicators:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(a) Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR): The LFPR is defined as the percentage of persons in labour force (i.e. working or seeking or available for work) in the population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(b) Worker Population Ratio (WPR): The WPR is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(c) Unemployment Rate (UR): The UR is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(d) Activity Status- Usual Status: The activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the activities pursued by the person during the specified reference period. When the activity status is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey, it is known as the usual activity status of the person.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(e) Activity Status- Current Weekly Status (CWS): The activity status determined on the basis of a reference period of last 7 days preceding the date of survey is known as the current weekly status (CWS) of the person.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/13th%20report%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Rural%20Development%202020-2021%2017th%20Lok%20Sabha%20MoRD.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Standing Committee Report on Rural Development: Demand for Grants (2021-22), Thirteenth Report[/inside], presented to the Lok Sabha on 9th March, 2021 and laid in the Rajya Sabha on 9th March, 2021, Seventeenth Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Ministry of Rural Development. Demands for Grants (2021-22) of the Department of Rural Development(under Ministry of Rural Development) was tabled in the Lok Sabha vide Demand No. 86 wherein Rs. 131,519.08 crore was allocated to the DoRD by the Government. The Standing Committee on Rural Development examined the above Demand for Grants and&nbsp; have&nbsp; reviewed the&nbsp; performance&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; schemes vis-a-vis fund allocation/ utilization during 2020-21. The observations/ recommendations of the Committee are provided in the report. The schemes covered by the report are: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA); Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana -Gramin (PMAY-G); Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY); Deendayal Antyodaya&nbsp; Yojana-National Rural Livelihood Mission&nbsp; DAY-NRLM; National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP); Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Rurban Mission (SPMRM); and Saansad Aadarsh Gram Yojana (SAGY).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Standing%20Committee%20Report%20on%20Labour%20Social%20Security%20and%20Welfare%20Measures%20for%20Inter%20State%20Migrant%20Workers%202020-21%20Sixteenth%20Report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Standing Committee Report on Labour: Social Security and Welfare Measures for Inter-State Migrant Workers (2020-21), Sixteenth Report[/inside], presented to the Lok Sabha on 11th February, 2021 and laid in the Rajya Sabha on 11th February, 2021, Seventeenth Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Ministry of Labour and Employment. The current pandemic has forced the Government to give a serious thought to the plight of the migrant workers, given the scale of the unprecedented misery millions of them found themselves in&nbsp; during the crisis. Accordingly, the&nbsp; Government of India through its various&nbsp; organs formulated certain new schemes and&nbsp; aligned certain other schemes already in existence to mitigate the hardships of the migrant workers caused due to the pandemic and the consequential lockdown. Such schemes inter-alia include Pradhan&nbsp; Mantri Garib Kalyan Rojgar Abhiyan, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojna, Atmanirbhar Bharat Scheme, Affordable Rental Housing complexes, Ayushman Bharat -Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, etc.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Deeply anguished at the pathetic plight&nbsp; of the migrant labours during the crisis and&nbsp; with a view to assessing the&nbsp; efficacy of various Schemes launched/ aligned to alleviate the conditions of&nbsp; such workers, the Committee took up the&nbsp; subject for examination and report. In&nbsp; the process, the Committee took oral&nbsp; evidence of the Ministries of Labour &amp;&nbsp; Employment, Consumer&nbsp; Affairs, Food and&nbsp; Public Distribution (Departments of Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distribution), Health and Family Welfare,&nbsp; Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Skill Development &amp; Entrepreneurship besides obtaining Background Information and written clarifications from these Ministries/ Departments. Based on these oral and&nbsp; written depositions, the Committee have&nbsp; broached upon the subject in great details as enumerated in the succeeding chapters.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report, there is no better scheme than the&nbsp; MGNREGS to provide sustainable livelihood to the unskilled&nbsp; workers, including the inter-state migrant labours. In fact, by enacting the MGNREGA legislation in 2005, the Indian Parliament had set in motion a process that provides&nbsp; for a specific and significant welfare provision, constitutive of the very idea&nbsp; of citizenship. As socio-economic rights, including the right to work, have long been part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Committee trust that the Ministry must have provided adequate opportunity for wage employment for the unskilled workers, especially the migrant&nbsp; workers in the 262 permissible works under MGNREGA. The Committee report has advised that the Ministry should unfailingly continue with their endeavour in the provision of wage employment to the unskilled/ migrant workers not only during pandemics but for all times, to meet any contingency and cater to the basic needs&nbsp; of the poorer sections of the society.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**<br />
The report (please <a href="/upload/files/IIHS.pdf">click here </a>to access) entitled [inside]Lessons for Social Protection from the COVID-19 Lockdowns Report 1 of 2: State Relief (released in February, 2021)[/inside] seeks to use COVID-19 and its attendant lockdowns in India as a crucial moment to assess the protective aspect of social protection, asking three interrelated questions:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">First, what do the immediate relief measures put into place to cope with the impact of COVID-19 and the lockdowns tell us about the current state of social protection systems? Second, how did these measures effectively target and deliver relief in complex and constrained situations such as the lockdowns? Third, going forward, what lessons does this set of immediate relief measures offer not just for medium-term recovery but for designing, building and improving social protection systems?</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The authors -- Gautam Bhan, Antara Rai Chowdhury, Neha Margosa, Kinjal Sampat and Nidhi Sohane -- chose to focus on three kinds of relief that are closely related to social protection: food, cash transfer and labour protections, analysing 181 announcements between March 20 and May 31, 2020, covering the four phased lockdowns announced by the Government of India. The archive focuses on announcements, circulars, notifications, and orders about these three kinds of relief.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Across them, the researchers employed three key analytical frames that structure the report; identification, defining entitlements, and delivery mechanisms &ndash; key components of the actually existing practice of any social protection system.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The first part focuses on identification, looking closely at eligibility criteria to be part of a relief scheme, verification processes, as well as the use of databases to direct relief. The second part looks at defining entitlements themselves, assessing what was given as relief, and consider the factors that led to this determination. The third part then looks at delivery mechanisms, focusing on the modes, processes, and actors responsible for ensuring the promised entitlement actually reached the right person within an appropriate time frame.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Relief measures implemented during the lockdown are a rich archive against which to assess each. These measures both continued, used and expanded existing systems of design and delivery but also innovated with &ldquo;temporary&rdquo; measures that created new categories of recipients, new forms of entitlements, and new mechanisms of delivery. It is crucial that we learn from both the continuities and innovations of the social protection measures implemented in this time in order to improve and expand these systems in a post-COVID world.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/ILO%20Home%20Based%20Worker%20report%20dated%2013%20Jan%202021%281%29.pdf">click here</a> to access the ILO report [inside]Working from home: From invisibility to decent work (released in January 2021)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://www.im4change.org/news-alerts-57/time-use-survey-fills-the-gap-left-by-usage-of-labour-force-participation-rate-in-measuring-gender-divide-in-work.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Press%20Note%20on%20Time%20Use%20Survey%20Jan%20to%20Dec%202019.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.im4change.org/docs/Report_Time_Use_in_India_2019_Jan_to_Dec_2019_NSO_MoSPI_1.pdf">here</a> to read the key findings of the report entitled [inside]Time Use in India-2019, January-December 2019 (released in September 2020)[/inside], prepared by National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Indias_Labour_Law_Reform-_Briefing_note_for_Parliamentarians_2020-1.pdf" title="/upload/files/Indias_Labour_Law_Reform-_Briefing_note_for_Parliamentarians_2020-1.pdf">click here</a> to read the [inside]Briefing Note for Parliamentarians on Labour Law Reforms[/inside] prepared by Working Peoples&#39; Charter dated 21st September, 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/SS%20code%20bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/SS%20code%20bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Code on Social Security 2020[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/OSH%20Bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/OSH%20Bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/IR%20Bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/IR%20Bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Industrial Relations Code 2020[/inside]. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/The%20Code%20on%20Wages%202019.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Code on Wages 2019[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary_Standing_Committee_on_Labour_2019_20_The_Code_on_Social_Security_2019.pdf"><span style="background-color:#ffff00">click here</span></a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Labour 2019-20, The Code on Social Security 2019 (released in July 2020)[/inside], Ninth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202019-20%20Industrial%20Relations%20Code%202019.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2019-20, The Industrial Relations Code 2019 (released in April 2020)[/inside], Eighth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202019-20%20The%20Occupational%20Safety%20Health%20and%20Working%20Conditions%20Code%202019.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2019-20, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2019 (released in February 2020)[/inside], Fourth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary_Standing_Committee_on_Labour_2018_19_The_Code_on_Wages_Bill_2017.pdf"><span style="background-color:#00ff00">click here</span></a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2018-19, The Code on Wages Bill 2017 (released in December 2018)[/inside], Forty Third Report, Sixteenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202014-15%20The%20Factories%20Amendment%20Bill%202014.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2014-15, The Factories (Amendment) Bill 2014 (released in December 2014)[/inside], Third Report, Sixteenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the report entitled [inside]Tackling the COVID-19 youth employment crisis in Asia and the Pacific (released on 18th August, 2020)[/inside] by Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Labour Organisation (ILO), are as follows (please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/adb-ilo-covid-19-youth-employment-crisis-asia-pacific.pdf">click here</a> to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under 3-months containment scenario (short containment), in India, the equivalent of <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table.jpg">4.1 million</a> youth jobs may be lost, followed by Pakistan with 1.5 million jobs lost.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under 6-months containment scenario (long containment), in India, the equivalent of <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%281%29.jpg">6.1 million</a> youth jobs may be lost, followed by Pakistan with 2.3 million jobs lost.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In Fiji (29.8 percent), <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%282%29.jpg">India (29.5 percent)</a> and Mongolia (28.5 percent), the youth unemployment rate may rise to near 30 percent, and may be just over that level in Sri Lanka (32.5 percent) under short containment (3-months).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under long containment (6-months), youth unemployment rate may increase to <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%283%29.jpg">32.5 percent in India</a>.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The highest proportion of <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table.jpg">youth job loss among the seven sectors</a> in India would be felt in <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table%281%29.jpg">agriculture (28.8 percent)</a>, followed by <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table%282%29.jpg">construction (24.6 percent)</a>, retail trade (9.0 percent), inland transport (5.7 percent), textiles and textile products (4.2 percent), other services&nbsp; (3.1 percent) and hotels and restaurants (1.9 percent). The other sectors of the economy would be responsible for 22.7 percent of youth job losses.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Job loss among youth will continue throughout 2020 and could result in youth unemployment rates doubling. Between 10 and 15 million youth jobs (full-time equivalent) may be lost across 13 countries in Asia and the Pacific in 2020. These estimates are based on the expected fall in output and consequent decrease in labour demand for the year relative to a non-COVID-19 scenario. The estimates include large countries, such as India and Indonesia, as well as small ones such as Fiji and Nepal.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Disruptions of work-based learning have also been significant, with impacts on the provision of apprenticeships and internships. Responses to a survey on the COVID-19 impact on staff development and training with public and private enterprises and other organizations indicate that, in India, two thirds of firm-level apprenticeships and three quarters of internships were completely interrupted. Despite this, six of ten companies in India continued to provide wages or stipends to apprentices and interns.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The biggest challenges that firms cited as preventing continued apprenticeships and internships were (1) difficulties in delivering hands-on training, (2) infrastructure issues (in<br />
both countries), (3) limited digital literacy of users (in India), and (4) cost (in the Philippines).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Global survey on staff development and training in the context of COVID-19 pandemic for public and private enterprises and other organizations was launched by ten international and regional development partners, including ADB and the ILO. Responses cited in this report are based on a sample of 71 firms operating in India and 183 firms operating in the Philippines &ndash; noting that a different number of respondents answered each question. At the time of writing, survey results were not yet published.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://www.im4change.org/news-alerts-57/over-three-fourth-of-workers-lost-livelihoods-since-lockdown-finds-actionaid-india-s-national-survey-of-informal-workers.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Workers-in-the-time-of-Covid-19_ebook1.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.im4change.org/latest-news-updates/over-three-fourth-of-workers-lost-livelihoods-since-lockdown-findings-of-a-national-survey-of-informal-workers-by-actionaid-india.html">here</a> to access the key findings of the report entitled [inside]Workers in the Times of COVID-19 (first round) by ActionAid India (released 13th August, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong><br />
The Annual Report is based on the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by National Statistical Office (NSO) from July 2018 to June 2019. The survey was spread over 12,720&nbsp; first stage units -- FSUs (6,983 villages and 5,737 urban blocks) covering 1,01,579 households (55,812 in rural areas and 45,767 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,20,757 persons (2,39,817 in rural areas and 1,80,940 in urban areas). Estimates of the labour force indicators are presented in this report based on the usual status (ps+ss) approach and current weekly status approach adopted in the survey for classification of the population by activity statuses. The reference period for usual status (ps+ss) approach is 1 year and for current weekly status approach, it is 1 week. A rotational panel sampling design was used in urban areas. In this rotational panel scheme each selected household in urban areas is visited four times -- in the beginning with first visit schedule and thrice periodically later with revisit schedule. There was no revisit in the rural samples. The estimates of household and population, labour force, workforce and unemployment presented here are based on data collected in the Schedules of first visit in both rural and urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey, July 2018-June 2019 (released in June 2020)[/inside], National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/annual-report-on-periodic-labour-force-survey-july-2018-june-2019.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Labour Force in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Nearly 55.1 percent of the rural males, 19.7 percent of the rural females, 56.7 percent of the urban males and 16.1 percent of the urban females were in the labour force. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, LFPR in India was 38.1 percent: it was 37.8 percent in rural areas and 38.7 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, LFPR in India was 50.2 percent: it was 51.5 percent in rural areas and 47.5 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR) in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was about 35.3 percent at the all-India level. It was about 35.8 percent in rural areas and 34.1 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR was 52.1 percent for rural males, 19.0 percent for rural females, 52.7 percent for urban males and 14.5 percent for urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, WPR in India was 31.5 percent: it was 31.7 percent in rural areas and 30.9 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, WPR in India was 47.3 percent: it was 48.9 percent in rural areas and 43.9 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Status in employment among workers in usual status (ps+ss) </strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Share of self-employed among workers in India was about 57.4 percent among rural males, 59.6 percent among rural females, 38.7 percent among urban males and 34.5 percent among urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among workers, about 14.2 percent among rural males, 11.0 percent among rural females, 47.2 percent among urban males and 54.7 percent among urban females were regular wage/ salaried employees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The proportion of casual labour among workers in India was about 28.3 percent among rural males, 29.3 percent among rural females, 14.2 percent among urban males and 10.3 percent among urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Industry of work of the workers in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In rural areas, during 2018-19, roughly 53.2 percent of the male workers and 71.1 percent of the female workers were engaged in the agricultural sector. The proportions of male and female workers in rural areas engaged in &lsquo;construction&rsquo; sector were 15.4 percent and 6.0 percent respectively. The proportions of male and female workers in rural areas engaged in &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; sector were 7.3 percent and 9.0 percent respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In urban India, during 2018-19, among male workers, the industry sector, &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&#39; sector engaged about 25.2 percent while &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; and &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sectors accounted for about 21.9 percent and 22.3 percent, respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among female workers in the urban, &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sector (other than &lsquo;trade, hotel &amp; restaurant&rsquo; and &lsquo;transport, storage &amp; communications&rsquo;) shared the highest proportion of workers (45.6 percent), followed by &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; (24.5 percent) and &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&#39; (13.8 percent).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Informal sector and conditions of employment of the workers in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In India, 68.4 percent of the workers in non-agriculture sector were engaged in informal sector. The share of informal sector among male workers was 71.5 percent and among female workers was nearly 54.1 percent in non-agriculture.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 69.5 percent had no written job contract: 70.3 percent among males and 66.5 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 53.8 percent were not eligible for paid leave: 54.7 percent among males and 50.6 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 51.9 percent were not eligible for any social security benefit: 51.2 percent among males and 54.4 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Unemployment Rate in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Unemployment rate in the country was 5.8 percent. It was 5.6 percent among males and 3.5 percent among females in rural areas, while the rates were 7.1 percent among males and 9.9 percent among females in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; For educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above, unemployment rate was 11.0 percent: 11.2 percent in rural areas and 10.8 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate among the rural male youth (persons of age 15-29 years) was 16.6 percent while the unemployment rate among the rural female youth was 13.8 percent during 2018-19. The unemployment rate among the urban male youth was 18.7 percent while the unemployment rate for urban female youth was 25.7 percent during this period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Kindly note:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is defined as the percentage of persons in the labour force in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>LFPR = {(Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>WPR = {Number of employed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Proportion Unemployed (PU) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>PU = {Number of unemployed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>UR = {Number of unemployed persons divided by (Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) } multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity (ps) and usual subsidiary economic activity (ss) of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>The labour force in current weekly status gives the average picture of the labour force participation in a short period of one week during the survey period. The estimate of labour force according to the current weekly status approach gives the number of persons who worked for at least 1 hour or was seeking/ available for work for at least 1 hour on any day during the 7 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Domestic Workers Sector Skill Council (DWSSC) -- a <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">not-for-profit company</a> that works under the ambit of Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship -- has done a survey during the COVID-19&nbsp; lockdown in India. DWSSC did a random sample survey among 200 workers spread across eight states -&ndash; Delhi, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu. Had the sample size been larger, the results could have differed, according to DWSSC. The results of the survey are indicative of the problems faced by domestic help during the lockdown.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the survey done by Domestic Workers Sector Skill Council&nbsp;entitled [inside]Effects of Lockdown on Domestic Workers (released in June 2020)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/DWSSC_Survey_Report.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Nearly 96 percent of the domestic workers stopped going to work during lockdown while only 4 percent continued working.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; During the lockdown, when physical movement of citizens was restricted, domestic workers too got affected. They were asked not to report to work and the government advised the employers to pay them during the lockdown period. Nearly 85 percent domestic workers were found not to be paid by their employers during the lockdown period while only 15 percent were being paid during the same span. Most domestic workers residing in big cities were being paid by their employers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; DWSSC survey shows that about 30 percent of the domestic workers didn&rsquo;t have enough money/ cash with them. This was their biggest challenge as they didn&#39;t know how long they would be able to manage with the small amount of money left with them. Most domestic workers did not receive payments during the lockdown period from their employers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Almost 38 percent of domestic workers faced problems in arranging food as the stocks available in the nearby shops were limited. Though not all but some domestic workers also faced problems in accessing ration from PDS shops.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Roughly one-fourth of domestic workers did not face any problem related to food and majority of them were either those who returned back to their native place or workers whose employers were paying them wages/ salaries during the lockdown period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Approximately 23.5 percent of domestic workers migrated back to their native places as their spouse/ guardians (fathers) were daily wage workers like painters, mason, etc. Most domestic workers who returned back were mainly from big cities. Almost 76.5 percent workers have stayed back in the cities/ towns where they work as they were living there along with their families.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 41.5 percent of the domestic workers were aware about government helplines to avail the facilities being provided during the lockdown period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Majority of the domestic workers (nearly 98.5 percent) were aware about the precautions to be taken to avoid getting infected by COVID-19.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">DWSSC website</a> states that domestic workers or domestic help constitute nearly 20 million of the workforce, majority being women whose services mostly go unrecognized. These millions of domestic help can be found in Indian families from lower middle-class households in the villages to the most affluent ones in the metropolitan cities. Domestic workers function as &lsquo;lifelines&rsquo; to households, render multiple types of services, as full-time and part-time, live-in and live-out, and they are described as &lsquo;domestic servants&rsquo;. The practices associated with this occupation are undignified and completely unacceptable, partly for the reason that domestic workers have not yet acquired the status of a profession or a trade.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A domestic worker may perform variety of services for an individual or a family, providing care to children, elderly, ailing, disabled, besides household maintenance, cooking, laundry, shopping, etc., while functioning as skilled and unskilled worker. Domestic workers constitute one of the largest segments of the unorganised sector, and their size is vaguely estimated to be between 4.75 million and 25 million, says the <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">DWSSC website</a>. They mostly belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes communities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/almost-sixty-percent-of-agricultural-households-who-did-harvest-in-april-reported-a-yield-loss-shows-a-telephone-survey-conducted-across-twelve-states.html">here</a>, <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Press-Release_Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Agriculture-and-Food-Security-in-India_May-2020.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Powerpoint-Slides_Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Agriculture-and-Food-Security-in-India_May-2020.pdf">here</a> to access the key findings of the study entitled [inside]Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture and Food Security in India (released on 20th May, 2020)[/inside], which has been done by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA, Hyderabad), Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI, New Delhi), and Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health (Boston).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/lockdown-has-impacted-rural-livelihoods-badly-shows-recent-report-by-a-group-of-ngos.html">here</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/COVID%20Induced%20Lockdown%20and%20the%20hInterland_May%2013%202020.pdf">here</a> to access the key findings of a rapid assessment survey on rural livelihoods entitled&nbsp;[inside]COVID-19 induced Lockdown &ndash; How is the Hinterland Coping? (released on 13th May, 2020)[/inside], which was undertaken by VikasAnvesh Foundation, Sambodhi, Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN), BAIF Development Research Foundation (BAIF), Action for Social Advancement (ASA), SATHI-UP, Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), Grameen Sahara and Transforming Rural India Foundation (TRIF).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts-57/lockdown-led-to-massive-job-losses-find-results-of-an-ongoing-telephonic-survey.html">click here</a> to access the preliminary findings of an ongoing survey entitled [inside]COVID-19: Analysis of Impact and Relief Measures Study (released on 12th May, 2020)[/inside], undertaken by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University along with civil society organisations.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/situation-of-gurgaon-workers-became-worse-after-the-announcement-of-lockdown-2-shows-a-rapid-survey.html">click here</a> to access the key findings of the rapid assessment survey report entitled [inside]Taking Stock: Assessing Distribution and Distress in Gurugram during the COVID-19 Lockdown (released on 26th April, 2020)[/inside]. Kindly <a href="https://im4change.org/images/media/GNEM%20Report_26April.pdf">click here</a> to access the action research report by Gurgaon Nagrik Ekta Manch.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/NCAER_DCVTS2_PressRelease.pdf">click here</a> to access the key findings of the [inside]Second Round of Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey conducted by National Data Innovation Centre, NCAER (released on 1st May, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) released the results of its first round of the Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey (DCVTS), on 12th April, 2020. The study, conducted by NCAER&rsquo;s National Data Innovation Centre uses a scientifically designed rapid telephone survey in both the urban and rural parts of Delhi NCR to assess:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; people&rsquo;s knowledge of the Coronavirus</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; people&rsquo;s attitudes and perceptions towards the risk of a Coronavirus infection</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; preventive and control measures, especially social distancing, and the feasibility of adhering to them</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on people&rsquo;s livelihoods, income, social life, and access to essential items.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The DCVTS interviewed a representative random sample of some 1,750 adults covering the entire Delhi NCR,&nbsp;comprising 31 districts spread across the four states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, during 3rd-6th April, 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/NCAER%201st%20round%20telephonic%20survey.pdf">click here</a> to access the key findings of the [inside]First Round of Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey conducted by NCAER (released on 12th April, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Annual Report is based on the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by NSSO from July 2017 to June 2018. The survey was spread over 12,773 first stage units viz. FSUs (7,014 villages and 5,759 urban blocks) covering 1,02,113 households (56,108 in rural areas and 46,005 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,33,339 persons (2,46,809 in rural areas and 1,86,530 in urban areas). Estimates of the labour force indicators are presented in this report based on the usual status (ps+ss) approach and current weekly status approach adopted in the survey for classification of the population by activity statuses. The reference period for usual status (ps+ss) approach is 1 year and for current weekly status approach, it is 1 week. A rotational panel sampling design was used in urban areas. In this rotational panel scheme each selected household in urban areas is visited four times &ndash; in the beginning with first visit schedule and thrice periodically later with revisit schedule. There was no revisit in the rural samples. The estimates of household and population, labour force, workforce and unemployment presented here are based on data collected in the Schedules of first visit in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2017 - June 2018)[/inside], which has been produced by the National Statistical Office (released in May 2019) are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<strong>Labour Force</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; During 2017-18, according to usual status (ps+ss), about 54.9 percent of rural males and 18.2 percent of rural females were in the labour force. During this period, about 57 percent of urban males and 15.9 percent of urban females were in the labour force according to usual status (ps+ss).&nbsp;<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18, LFPR in usual status (ps+ss) for rural males remained almost at the same level.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, for rural female, LFPR decreased by nearly 8 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18 it further decreased by around 7 percentage points.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18 rounds, LFPR in usual status (ps+ss) for urban males remained at the same level. For urban females, between 2004-05 and 2011-12, LFPR decreased by about 2 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18, it remained almost at the same level.<br />
<br />
&bull; During 2017-18, according to current weekly status, about 54.4 percent of rural males and 16.1 percent of rural females were in the labour force. During this period, about 56.7 percent of urban males and 15.3 percent of urban females were in the labour force according to current weekly status.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18, LFPR in current weekly status for rural males remained almost at the same level. Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, for rural female, LFPR decreased by nearly 7 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18 it further decreased by around 5 percentage points.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2017-18, LFPR in current weekly status for urban males remained at the same level. For urban females, between 2004-05 and 2011-12, LFPR in current weekly status, decreased by about 2 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18, it increased by nearly 1 percentage point.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, LFPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 38.2 percent: it was 38.1 percent in rural areas and 38.5 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, LFPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 49.8 percent: it was 50.7 percent in rural areas and 47.6 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
<strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR)</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) according to usual status (ps+ss) was about 34.7 percent at the all-India level. It was about 35 percent in rural areas and 33.9 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; The WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) was 51.7 percent for rural males, 17.5 percent for rural females, 53 percent for urban males and 14.2 percent for urban females.<br />
<br />
&bull; The WPR according to current weekly status (CWS) was about 32.7 percent at the all-India level: 32.6 percent in rural areas and 32.9 percent in urban areas. The WPR according to CWS was 49.6 percent for rural males, 14.8 percent for rural females, 51.7 percent for urban males and 13.3 percent for urban females.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 31.4 percent: it was 31.8 percent in rural areas and 30.6 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 46.8 per cent: it was 48.1 per cent in rural areas and 43.9 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; In 2017-18, 24.8 percent of rural working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed.<br />
<br />
<strong>Unemployment Rate</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; According to usual status (ps+ss), unemployment rate was 5.8 percent among males and 3.8 percent among females in rural areas, while the rates were 7.1 percent among males and 10.8 percent among females in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; According to current weekly status (CWS), the unemployment rate was 8.8 percent among males and was 7.7 percent among females in rural areas while the rates were 8.8 percent among males and 12.8 percent among females in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; For educated (highest level of education secondary and above) rural males and rural females of age 15 years and above, unemployment rates according to usual status (ps+ss) were 10.5 percent and 17.3 percent, respectively.<br />
<br />
&bull; For educated males of age 15 years and above in urban areas, the unemployment rate was 9.2 percent and among the educated females of age 15 years and above in the urban areas, the unemployment rate was 19.8 per cent in 2017-18.<br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate among the rural male youth (persons of age 15-29 years) was 17.4 percent while the unemployment rate among the rural female youth was 13.6 percent during 2017-18. The unemployment rate among the urban male youth was 18.7 percent in 2017-18 while the unemployment rate for urban female youth was 27.2 percent during 2017-18.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Kindly note:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<em>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is defined as the percentage of persons in the labour force in the population.<br />
<br />
LFPR = {(Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.<br />
<br />
WPR = {Number of employed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Proportion Unemployed (PU) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed in the population.<br />
<br />
PU = {Number of unemployed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.<br />
<br />
UR = {Number of unemployed persons divided by (Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) } multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity (ps) and usual subsidiary economic activity (ss) of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The labour force in current weekly status gives the average picture of the labour force participation in a short period of one week during the survey period. The estimate of labour force according to the current weekly status approach gives the number of persons who worked for at least 1 hour or was seeking/ available for work for at least 1 hour on any day during the 7 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
As per the report entitled [inside]State of Working India 2019[/inside] (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/431State_of_Working_India_2019_Centre_for_Sustainable_Employment_Azim_Premji_University.pdf">click here</a> to access), which has been prepared by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University:<br />
<br />
&bull; In the present report an update on the jobs situation for the period between 2016 and 2018 is presented along with some ideas for employment generation.<br />
<br />
&bull; The first few months of 2019 have been unusually eventful for labour economists and statisticians in India. The ongoing controversy over job creation received a fresh impetus early in the new year with Somesh Jha&#39;s Business Standard expos&eacute; of a new National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) report on employment. Jha reported the &lsquo;leaked&rsquo; findings of the newly instituted Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), which showed that unemployment rates had risen to an all-time high of 6.1 percent in 2017-2018.<br />
<br />
&bull; India&rsquo;s labour statistics system is in transition. The five-yearly employment-unemployment surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSS-EUS), the last of which was in 2011-12, have been discontinued. The annual surveys conducted by the Labour Bureau (LB-EUS) have also been discontinued. The last available survey in this series is from 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; The current NDA government has not released the results of the last Labour Bureau survey (2016-17), nor the results of the new high frequency Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by the NSSO, both of which have been cleared by the concerned authorities for public release. Thus we do not have official employment numbers based on nationally representative household surveys after 2015-16.<br />
<br />
&bull; In the absence of official survey data, the report has used data from the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) to understand the employment situation between 2016 and 2018.<br />
<br />
&bull; CMIE-CPDX is a nationally representative survey that covers about 160,000 households and 522,000 individuals and is conducted in three &lsquo;waves&rsquo;, each spanning four months, beginning from January of every year. An employment-unemployment module was added to this survey in 2016.<br />
<br />
&bull; Analysis of CMIE-CPDX reveals that five million men lost their jobs between 2016 and 2018, the beginning of the decline in jobs coinciding with demonetisation in November 2016, although no direct causal relationship can be established based only on these trends.<br />
<br />
&bull; Analysis also reveals that unemployment, in general, has risen steadily post 2011. Both the PLFS and the CMIE-CPDX report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018, double of what it was in the decade from 2000 to 2011.<br />
<br />
&bull; India&#39;s unemployed are mostly the higher educated and the young. Among urban women, graduates are 10 per cent of the working age population but 34 percent of the unemployed. The age group 20-24 years is hugely over-represented among the unemployed. Among urban men, for example, this age group accounts for 13.5 per cent of the working age population but 60 percent of the unemployed.<br />
<br />
&bull; In addition to rising open unemployment among the higher educated, the less educated (and likely, informal) workers have also seen job losses and reduced work opportunities since 2016.<br />
<br />
&bull; In general, women are much worse affected than men. They have higher unemployment rates as well as lower labour force participation rates.<br />
<br />
&bull; There is a decline in the size of the labour force as well as the workforce, and a concomitant increase in the rate of unemployment, between 2016 and 2018. This is a matter of concern.<br />
<br />
&bull; From the table below, it could be seen that: a. Although the levels of WPR, LFPR and UR differ quite a bit between surveys, the trends are similar; b. The levels match much better across surveys for men than for women; and c. LFPR and WPR are broadly similar across surveys, while there is greater variation in UR reported across surveys.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<img alt="Table" src="tinymce/uploaded/Table_7.jpg" style="height:396px; width:1110px" /><br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note:</strong> Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR, percentage of working age people working or looking for work); Workforce Participation Rate (WPR, percentage of working age people working); and Unemployment Rate (UR, percentage of those in the labour force who are looking for work)</em><br />
<br />
**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
The key findings of the report entitled [inside]State of Working India 2018[/inside] (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/577State_of_Working_India_2018.pdf">click here</a> to access), which has been produced by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, are as follows:<br />
<br />
&bull; In the 1970s and 1980s, when GDP growth was around 3-4 percent, employment growth was around 2 percent per annum. Since the 1990s, and particularly in the 2000s, GDP growth accelerated to 7 percent but employment growth slowed to 1 percent or even less. The ratio of employment growth to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is now less than 0.1 percent.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2013 and 2015, total employment actually shrank by seven million. More recent data from private sources show that the absolute decline has continued past 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; Unemployment rate is over 5 percent overall, and a much higher 16 percent for youth and the higher educated.<br />
<br />
&bull; Despite rising wages, they continue to be well below the Seventh Central Pay Commission&rsquo;s recommended minimum level.<br />
<br />
&bull; When adjusted for inflation, wage rates have increased in most sectors at 3 percent per annum or more.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2010 and 2015, wages when adjusted for inflation, grew at 2 percent per annum for organised manufacturing, 4 percent for unorganised manufacturing, 5 percent for unorganised services, and 7 percent for agriculture (for the last, growth has collapsed since 2015). Since 2000, real wages have grown at around 3-4 percent in most sectors, with the exception of agriculture. As this rate real wages double every two decades.<br />
<br />
&bull; 82 percent of male and 92 percent of female workers earn less than Rs. 10,000 a month. Nationally, 67 percent of households reported monthly earnings of upto Rs. 10,000 in 2015. In comparison, the minimum salary recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC) is Rs. 18,000 per month. Even in the organised manufacturing sector 90 percent of the industries pay wages below the CPC minimum.<br />
<br />
&bull; In the early 1980s, one crore rupees of real fixed capital (in 2015 prices) supported around 90 jobs in the organised manufacturing sector. By 2010, this had fallen to 10.<br />
<br />
&bull; Contract workers comprise 30 percent of all workers in organised manufacturing. The share of contract work and other precarious forms of labour have grown since the early 2000s.<br />
<br />
&bull; Labour productivity is over six times what it was in 1982, but production workers&rsquo; real wages have grown by only about 1.5 times.<br />
<br />
&bull; Employment in the new service sector, including IT and modern retail, increased from 11.5 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2015. However, more than 50 per cent of service sector employment is still made up of petty trade, domestic services and other types of small-scale and informal employment.<br />
<br />
&bull; Women constitute 16 percent of all service sector workers but 60 percent of domestic workers. Women constitute just 22 percent of manufacturing.<br />
<br />
&bull; Women earn between 35 and 85 percent of men&rsquo;s earnings, depending on the type of work and the level of education of the worker. In the organised manufacturing sector, the gap narrowed from 35 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2013. The disparity is the largest among own-account women workers and the least among the higher educated and regular workers.<br />
<br />
&bull; The percentage of working age women who are either employed or looking for work is low in India compared to many other developing countries. While only 20 women are in paid employment for every 100 men in Uttar Pradesh, this number is 50 in Tamil Nadu and 70 in the north-east.<br />
<br />
&bull; The ratio of female to male labour force participation rate varies from less than 0.2 in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab to 0.5 in TN and AP, to a more than 0.7 in Mizoram and Nagaland. Field studies suggest that lack of available work, rather than social restrictions, may be preventing women from entering the labour force.<br />
<br />
&bull; Scheduled Caste (SC) as well as Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups are over-represented in low paying occupations and severely under-represented in the high paying occupations, which clearly indicates the enduring power of caste-based segregation in India.<br />
<br />
&bull; SCs earn only 56 percent of upper-caste earnings. The figure is 55 percent for STs and 72 percent for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=43504">click here</a> to access the [inside]Report on &ldquo;Measuring Productivity at the Industry Level &ndash; The India KLEMS Database&rdquo;, 27 March, 2018, Reserve Bank of India[/inside]. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the report.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Task%20Force%20on%20Improving%20Employment%20Data%20%20Report%20for%20Public%20Comments.pdf">click here</a>&nbsp; to access the [inside]Draft Report of the Task Force on Improving Employment Data (2017) chaired by Arvind Panagariya, NITI Aayog[/inside]. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the report.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_7th_round_Report_final_12032018.pdf" title="QES 7th round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Seventh Quarterly Report on Employment Scenario in selected&nbsp; sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2017[/inside], released in March 2018, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Seventh Quarterly Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2017.</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Sixth_round_QES_report.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Sixth_round_QES_report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Sixth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2017[/inside], released in February 2018, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/labour-bureau039s-new-report-indicate-layoffs-of-casual-contract-workers-in-q1-of-2017-18-4683957.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Sixth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2017.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/5th_QES_Report.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/5th_QES_Report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Fifth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2017[/inside], released in December 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/casual-employment-worst-hit-after-note-ban-shows-new-report-4683563.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Fifth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2017.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report_QES_4th_Round_F.pdf" title="QES 4th Round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Fourth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st January, 2017[/inside], released in April 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_3rd_Report_NewSeries.pdf" title="QES 3rd round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Third Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2016[/inside], released in March 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_2nd_Round_NewSeries.pdf" title="QES 2nd round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Second Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2016[/inside], released in December 2016, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_Report_Jan_2016.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/QES_Report_Jan_2016.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]First Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2016[/inside], released in September 2016, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment,</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1 is based on a survey (field work) that was executed from April, 2015 to December, 2015. A total sample of 1,56,563 households has been covered for the survey, with a break up of 88,783 households from rural areas and 67,780 households from urban areas.<br />
<br />
For the survey, altogether 7,81,793 persons were inquired, out of which 4,48,254 respondents belonged to rural households and the rest 3,33,539 respondents belonged to urban households.<br />
<br />
A moving reference period of last twelve completed months from the date of survey is used to derive various estimates of labour force and its derivatives for preparing the Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1.<br />
<br />
As per the [inside]Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1 (released in September 2016)[/inside], which has been prepared by the Labour Bureau (Chandigarh), please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%205th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202015-16.pdf" title="Report on 5th Annual Employment Unemployment Survey 2015-16">click here</a> to access:<br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate was estimated to be 5.0 percent at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate stood at 5.1 percent whereas in urban areas, the same was 4.9 percent (as per the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, the female unemployment rate was estimated to be 8.7 percent, whereas for males it was 4.0 percent (as per the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was estimated to be 50.3 percent at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, the LFPR was estimated to be 53 percent whereas in the urban areas the LFPR was estimated to be 43.5 percent as per the UPS approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, female LFPR was estimated to be 23.7 percent as compared to 75 percent for males and 48 percent for transgenders.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was estimated to be 47.8 percent at the national level, based on the UPS approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, the WPR was estimated to be 50.4 percent as compared to 41.4 percent in the urban areas (based on the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; The female WPR was estimated to be 21.7 percent at the national level as compared to the male WPR of 72.1 percent and 45.9 per cent for transgenders (based on the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; Majority of the employed persons were found to be self-employed based on both the Usual Principal Status (UPS) and Usual Principal &amp; Subsidiary Status (UPSS) approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 46.6 percent of the workers were found to be self-employed, followed by 32.8 percent as casual labour (based on UPS approach). Nearly 17 percent of the employed persons were wage/ salary earners and the rest 3.7 percent were contract workers.<br />
<br />
&bull; Based on the UPS approach, at the national level, 46.1 percent of the persons were found to be employed in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing sector (also called primary sector), followed by 21.8 percent in the secondary sector and 32 percent in the tertiary sector.<br />
<br />
&bull; Almost 60.6 percent of the persons aged 15 years and above who were available for work for all the 12 months during the reference period were able to get work throughout the year, at the national level. In rural areas, 52.7 percent of the persons aged 15 years and above who were available for work for all the 12 months during the reference period were able to get work throughout the year at the national level, whereas the corresponding figure for urban areas stood at 82.1 percent.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 67.5 percent of self-employed workers had average monthly earnings of upto Rs. 7500. Only 0.1 percent of the self-employed were estimated to have earnings above Rs. 1 lakh.<br />
<br />
&bull; Similarly, 57.2 percent of regular wage/ salaried workers had monthly average earnings of upto Rs. 10,000. At the national level, 38.5 percent of the contract workers and 59.3 percent of the casual workers had monthly earnings of upto Rs. 5000.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, majority of unemployed persons (33.5 percent) used more than two methods to seek work i.e. through friends &amp; relatives (24.1 percent), followed by applications made in response to advertisement (23.7 percent), and through employment exchanges (4.3 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the country level, 58.3 percent of unemployed graduates and 62.4 percent of unemployed post graduates cited non-availability of jobs matching with education/ skill and experience as the main reason for unemployment, followed by non-availability of adequate remuneration cited by 22.8 percent of graduates, and 21.5 percent of post graduates.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 64.9 percent of regular wage/ salaried workers, 67.8 percent of contract workers and 95.3 percent of the casual workers do not have a written job contract. Nearly, 27 percent of the regular wage/salaried workers and 11.5 percent of the contract workers had written job contract of more than three years.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, only 20.6 percent of workers except self-employed received paid leave and just 21.6 percent availed social security benefits. A majority 71.2 percent of workers were not eligible for social security benefits.<br />
<br />
&bull; Almost 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc.<br />
<br />
&bull; Only three North Eastern states, namely Tripura, Manipur and Mizoram have more than 70 percent of the households that benefited from MGNREGA.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, about 77 percent of the households were reported to be having no regular wage/ salaried person.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, a little more than 67 percent of the surveyed households had average monthly earnings not exceeding Rs. 10,000 only. In rural areas, such households constituted about 77 percent, whereas the corresponding proportion was about 45 percent among urban households.<br />
<br />
&bull; The state of Madhya Pradesh recorded the highest proportion (35.8 percent) of households with average monthly earnings not exceeding Rs. 5,000, followed by West Bengal (34.5 percent), Uttar Pradesh (30.1 percent) and Odisha (29.8 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, 94.4 percent of the households surveyed had saving bank accounts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Note: </em></strong><br />
<br />
The <strong>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) </strong>is defined as the number of persons in the labour force per 1000 persons (of the population).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR)</strong> is defined as the number of persons employed per 1000 persons (of the population aged 15 years &amp; above).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Proportion Unemployed (PU)</strong> is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons (of the population aged 15 years &amp; above).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Unemployment Rate (UR)</strong> is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons in the labour force (employed &amp; unemployed).<br />
<br />
<strong>Usual Principal Status (UPS) Approach: </strong>The major time criterion based on the 365 days is used to determine the activity pursued by a person under the UPS approach. Accordingly, the major time spent by a person (183 days or more) is used to determine whether the person is in the labour force or out of labour force. A person found unemployed under this approach reflects the chronic unemployment. In the present survey, the UPS approach estimates are derived for a moving reference period of last twelve months. For example, if the household is surveyed in January, 2014, the reference period for collection of information is January, 2013 to December, 2013.<br />
<br />
A person is classified as belonging to labour force as per the UPS approach, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons, who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.<br />
<br />
<strong>Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) Approach: </strong>The other important approach to measure the labour force parameters is the UPSS approach. This approach is a hybrid one which takes into consideration both the major time criterion and shorter time period (30 days or more in any economic activity). Thus a person who has worked even for 30 days or more in any economic activity during the reference period of last twelve months is considered as employed under this approach. In this approach, the reference period is same as taken in the usual principal status approach (UPS). This approach is also called the usual status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">[inside]Report on 4th Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2013-14[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%204th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202013-14.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%204th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202013-14.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 3rd Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2012-13[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%203rd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202012-13.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%203rd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202012-13.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 2nd Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%202nd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202011-12.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%202nd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202011-12.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 1st Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2009-10[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%201st%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202009-10.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%201st%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202009-10.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">As per the [inside]Economic Survey 2015-16[/inside], Ministry of Finance, (<a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol1.pdf">Volume-1</a> , <a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol2.pdf">Volume-2</a>)<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of economically active population (15-59 years) has increased from 57.7 per cent to 63.3 per cent during 1991 to 2013, as per Sample Registration System (SRS) data for 2013.<br />
<br />
&bull; The employment growth in the organized sector (Public and Private combined) increased by 2 percent in 2012 over 2011, while it increased by only 1 percent in 2011 over 2010.<br />
<br />
&bull; The annual growth rate of employment for the private sector was 4.5 percent in 2012 over 2011 whereas the public sector registered a marginal growth of 0.4 percent in the same year.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Fourth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey conducted by the Labour Bureau during the period January 2014 to July 2014 has shown that the Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is 52.5 percent for all persons. However, the LFPR for rural areas stands at 54.7 percent, which is much greater than that for rural areas i.e. 47.2 percent. The LFPR for women is significantly lower than that for males in both rural and urban areas. As per the Survey, the Unemployment Rate is 4.7 percent in rural areas and 5.5 percent in urban areas. The total unemployment rate reported is 4.9 percent as per the Labour Bureau Survey. These figures are much higher than the all India unemployment rates of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO, 2012-11) which reported unemployment rate of 2.3 percent for rural areas, 3.8 percent for Urban Areas and 2.7 percent for India as a whole.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Government has taken several measures including Labour reforms to improve the employment situation in the country as well as employment conditions for women. Some of the recent Labour reforms include the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act 2015, National Career Services Portal, Shram Suvidha Portal and Universal Account Number Facility.<br />
<br />
&bull; The National Policy on Skill Development and Entrepreneurship 2015 aims to ensure &lsquo;Skilling on a large Scale at a Speed with high Standards and promote a culture of innovation based entrepreneurship to ensure sustainable livelihoods&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) proposes to cover 24 lakh Indian youth with meaningful, industry relevant, Skill Based Training under which 5.32 lakh persons have already been enrolled. Of this number, 4.38 lakh have successfully completed training throughout India.<br />
<br />
&bull; In addition, the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), a placement-linked skill development scheme for rural youth who are poor, as a skilling component of the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) has also been launched. During 2015-16, against a target of skilling 1.78 lakhs candidates under the DDU-GKY, a total of 1.75 lakh have already been trained and 0.60 lakh placed till November 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; With a view to increasing the scope of employability among differently-abled persons, the Government has launched a National Action Plan (NAP) for skill training. The plan has target of skilling 5 lakh differently-abled persons in next three years. Plans are also on the anvil to extend the NAP with an online skill-training platform with a target of 5 lakh every year.<br />
<br />
&bull; Under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, about 3.63 crore households have been provided employment of 134.96 crore person days during the current financial year (as on 1 January, 2016). Of this, 76.81 crore person days or 57 percent were availed of by women.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Economic Survey 2015-16 has expressed concern at the reported low rates of workforce participation for females. The level of financial inclusion of women in terms of number of women with bank accounts still remains low in India. However, it is noteworthy that there are women achievers in the financial sector, with leading nationalized banks and financial institutions headed by women, says the Economic Survey.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">For the report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation Among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12), the survey conducted by NSSO was spread over 12,737 First Stage Units-FSUs (7,469 villages and 5,268 urban blocks) covering 1,01,724 households (59,700 in rural areas and 42,024 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,56,999 persons (2,80,763 in rural areas and 1,76,236 in urban areas).&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The number of households surveyed at the all-India level in rural areas for the Hindus were 45,565, for the Muslims were 7,141, for the Christians were 4,177, for the Sikhs were 1,346 and for Others were 1,471. In urban areas the number of households surveyed for the Hindus were 31,470, for the Muslims were 6,135, for the Christians were 2,754, for the Sikhs were 747 and for Others were 917.<br />
<br />
The number of persons surveyed at the all-India level in rural areas for the Hindus were 2,10,103, for the Muslims were 37,497, for the Christians were 19,846, for the Sikhs were 6,646 and for Others were 6,671. In urban areas number of persons surveyed for the Hindus were 1,26,419, for the Muslims were 31,114, for the Christians were 11,575, for the Sikhs were 3329 and for Others were 3798.<br />
<br />
As per the [inside]NSS 68th Round Report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12) released in February, 2016, MoSPI[/inside] (please <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_568_19feb16.pdf">click here</a> to access):<br />
<br />
<em>Self-employment</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural India, proportion of households, having major source of income from self-employment, was almost at the same level among Hindus (49.9 percent), Christians (49.8 percent) and Muslims (49.2 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; In urban India, proportion of households with self-employment as the major source of income was the highest among Muslims (50 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Regular wage/ salary</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban India, Christians had the highest proportion of households having major source of income from regular wage/ salary earning (16 percent in rural India and 45.8 percent in urban India).<br />
<br />
<em>Casual labour</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural India, among the specific religious groups, proportion of households with casual labour as the major source of income was the highest among Hindus (34.8 percent) and lowest among Christians (24.5 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; In urban India, proportion of households with casual labour as the major source of income was the highest among Muslims (15 percent) and lowest for Sikhs (4.1 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Land possessed and land cultivated in rural areas</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, the proportion of households possessing land of size 4.01 hectares or more was the highest for Sikh households (8.5 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of households cultivating land of size 4.01 hectares or more was the highest for Sikh households (8.7 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Literacy and Current Attendance in Educational Institutions</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, proportion of not-literates was the lowest for Christians (14.6 percent for rural males, 23.7 percent for rural females, 5.7 percent for urban males and 9 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of persons of age 15 years and above with educational level secondary and above was the highest for Christians in rural areas for both males and females (36.3 percent for rural males and 31.1 percent for rural females) and for females in urban areas (62.7 percent) whereas for males in urban areas it was the highest among Sikhs (67.6 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 0-29 years, for major religious groups, current attendance rate in educational institutions was the highest for Christians (58.5 percent for rural males, 51.7 percent for rural females, 61.5 percent for urban males and 56.8 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 0-29 years, for major religious groups, current attendance rate in educational institutions was the lowest among Muslims (48.7 percent for rural males, 42.1 percent for rural females, 47 percent for urban males and 46.3 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Labour Force according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, among males in both rural and urban areas, Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was the highest for Sikhs (57.6 percent in rural areas and 56.8 percent in urban areas respectively).<br />
<br />
&bull; For females in both rural and urban areas, LFPR was the highest for Christians (30.4 percent in rural areas and 27.7 percent in urban areas respectively).<br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban areas for both males and females LFPR was the lowest for Muslims (51.1 percent for rural males, 15.9 percent for rural females, 55.3 percent for urban males and 10.9 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Work Force according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, for males in rural areas, Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was the highest for Sikhs (56.9 percent) and in urban areas, it was the highest for Hindus (55 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; For females in both rural and urban areas, WPR was the highest for Christians (28.4 percent in rural areas and 25.2 percent in urban areas).<br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban areas for both males and females WPR was the lowest for Muslims (49.9 percent for rural males, 15.3 percent for rural females, 53.2 percent for urban males and 10.5 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Unemployment Rate according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, unemployment rate in both rural and urban areas was the highest for Christians (4.5 percent in rural areas and 5.9 percent in urban areas) and lowest for Sikhs in rural areas (1.3 percent) and Hindus in urban areas (3.3 percent).<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note: </strong>In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity and usual subsidiary economic activity of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em><br />
<br />
**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
According to the [inside]Economic Survey 2014-15[/inside] Vol. 1 &amp; 2 (Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/448echapter-vol1.compressed.pdf">Vol1</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/476echapter-vol2.pdf">Vol2</a>&nbsp; to access):<br />
<br />
&bull; Estimates of employment growth and its elasticity relative to economic growth vary widely. However, tentatively, one might say that employment growth and elasticity have declined in the 2000s compared to the 1990s. Since labour force growth is in excess of employment growth, labour absorption will be a challenge. Reforms and faster economic growth will be central to meeting it.<br />
<br />
&bull; A few very tentative conclusions can be drawn from what are fairly noisy estimates. Aggregate employment growth has been above 2 percent in the 1990s. The Census and Economic Census are airly close to each other in this regard, although the NSS data paints a different picture. Employment growth declined to between 1.4 and 1.8 percent in the 2000s according to both the Census and NSS.<br />
<br />
&bull; In contrast, employment growth in organized industry exhibits the opposite temporal pattern, with substantially higher employment growth in the 2000s compared with the 1990s.<br />
<br />
&bull; A similar pattern is suggested for the employment elasticity of growth: higher elasticity of about 0.35-0.44 in the 1990s and a drop to close to 0.2 in the 2000s. The most recent data from the Labour Bureau indicates that since 2011-12 too, the employment elasticity has remained low. Employment absorption was evidently less successful in the last decade.<br />
<br />
&bull; Regardless of which data source is used, it seems clear that employment growth is lagging behind growth in the labour force. For example, according to the Census, between 2001 and 2011, labor force growth was 2.23 percent (male and female combined). This is lower than most estimates of employment growth in this decade of closer to 1.4 percent. Creating more rapid employment opportunities is clearly a major policy challenge.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A cause for concern is deceleration in the CAGR of employment during 2004-05 to 2011-12 to 0.5 per cent from 2.8 per cent during 1999-2000 to 2004-05 as against compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 2.9 per cent and 0.4 per cent in the labour force respectively for the same two periods.<br />
<br />
&bull; During 1999-2000 to 2004-05, employment on usual status (US) basis increased by 59.9 million persons from 398.0 million to 457.9 million as against the increase in labour force by 62.0 million persons from 407.0 million to 469.0 million.<br />
<br />
&bull; After a period of slow progress during 2004-05 to 2009-10, employment generation picked up during 2009-10 to 2011-12, adding 13.9 million persons to the workforce, but not keeping pace with the increase in labour force (14.9 million persons).<br />
<br />
&bull; A major impediment to the pace of quality employment generation in India is the small share of manufacturing in total employment. However data from the sixty-eighth National Sample Survey (NSS) round indicates a revival in employment growth in manufacturing from 11 per cent in 2009-10 to 12.6 per cent in 2011-12. Promoting growth of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME) is critical from this perspective.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Labour.doc" title="Labour">click here</a> to access the [inside]Achievements and Initiatives in the Ministry of Labour and Employment[/inside] as per the Press Information Bureau&#39;s Press Note dated 8 September, 2014.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
According to the study titled: [inside]Trends in Rural Wage Rates: Whether India Reached Lewis Turning Point[/inside] by A Amarender Reddy (2013), International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT/CGIAR) (please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/2013%20Trends%20in%20rural%20wage%20rates_1.pdf" title="Trend in rural wage rates">click here</a> to download)<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many observe that since last decade, labor shortages in rural India have become an issue. Farmers in rural areas blame it on employment guarantee scheme MGNREGA, but there is no concrete evidence to prove this; some also claim that the faster growth of the economy and non-farm sector are the main reasons, which in fact is a good sign. However, there are no studies specifically to test the theoretical and empirical issues of rising wage rates in India. In this paper, trends in rural wages are assessed along the Lewis continuum through wage rates data.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The results of the present study show a clear rising trend in real wage rates since 1995, and then accelerating from 2007 onwards in developed states like Punjab, Haryana and Tamil Nadu. Less participation in public works program in Punjab and Haryana also indicates no surplus labor. This confirms that at least developed states in India crossed the Lewis Turning Point (LTP)*.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The acceleration of real wages even in slack season indicates that the era of labor shortage has started in rural areas especially in developed states like Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh, which needs to be tackled through labor saving technology and wide scale farm mechanisation. On the other hand it appears that the underdeveloped states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have not reached the LTP and needs to develop policies to increase productivity of rural labor in these backward states.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The results of the study show a clear rising trend in real wages since 1995 more particularly from 2007 especially in the developed states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. And the acceleration of this rising trend since 2007, even in slack seasons, indicates that the labor shortage is a permanent phenomenon and era of surplus labor is over.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the all India level, there is an upward movement in wage rates since 2006 onwards. The wage rates for mason and carpenter are much above all other wage rates, as both these require specialised skills, then followed by tractor driver. Among agricultural wage rates, ploughing occupy highest wages followed by sowing, harvesting and the lowest recorded among unskilled laborer. It is interesting to see that from 1995 to 2005 there is almost no trend in wage rates among all work types.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In slack season, wage rates increased steeply after 2007 onwards for all the categories of work indicating LTP. However, from 1995 to 2006 the wage rates in both slack and peak seasons have not increased. Overall, the sluggish real wages of 1995 to 2005 suggest an excess of rural labor force prior to 2005.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Over the years, the real wage rates for the activities such as well digging, Tractor driver and black smith have been increasing steeply. It is clearly evident that the unskilled labor in non-farm activities is being paid more than many of the farm activities like picking, weeding, transplanting and threshing. The highest paid farm activity is ploughing, which is the most common field operation for almost all the crops. Annual growth rates are much higher during 2007-2012, while during 1995 to 2006 there is mixed picture, with some work types showing negative growth.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The rapid economic growth in Haryana, Punjab and TN generated a high demand for rural laborers, as reflected in the relatively higher growth rate of wages in these states from 1995 to 2012. From 2005 onward, real wages began to rise substantially and simultaneously in all the states regardless of their development level.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is a significant positive association among the growth in wages of ploughing and harvesting with average days under MGNREGA. The growth of wages for sowing is having negative association with public work days, while growth rate of unskilled labor wage rates do not have any significant association with public work days in the states. Over all, there is no concrete evidence that there is a positive association between agricultural wages and employment days created by public works program across the states.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no string correlation between share of agriculture in GDP and growth in wage rates, indicating rural wage rate may be induced by expansion of urban (non-agricultural sector) sector in states like TN, Karnataka and Maharashtra or by expansion of agricultural sector as that in AP, Haryana and Punjab. But at least one of the sectors needs to be stronger in creating employment to cross the LTP. Urbanisation is playing an important role in increasing wage rates through upward push in rural labor markets as seen in TN, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Haryana. There is some possible positive influence of public works program (MGNREGA) on wage rates as in AP and TN which ranked first and second in public works program and also growth in wage rates.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The wage gap between non-agriculture and agriculture is higher in UP, followed by Gujarat, Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, MP and Maharashtra than the national average, while lower in Haryana, Karnataka, TN, AP and WB. In most of the state and at national level the wage gap is reducing in rural areas. At national level the wage gap increased from 1995 to 2005, then after decreased. At all India level it increased from 1.5 in 1995 to 1.7 in 2005, then declined to again 1.5 in 2012.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The growth of agricultural sector is now about 3 to 4% per annum, where as the growth of industry and service sectors is about 10-12% per annum. Share of agricultural sector reduced from 41% in 1973 to 14% in 2012, with consequent rise in non-agricultural sector from 59% to 86% of the GDP. The share of labor dependent on agriculture decreased from 74% to 50% and share of labor dependent on non-agriculture increased from 26% to 50% during the same period. The wage gap between non-agriculture and agriculture further increased from 3.5 to 4.0 to about 6.3 during the same period. As a result, a large number of laborers moved from the agricultural to the non-agricultural sectors (migration from rural to urban areas).<br />
<br />
<strong>Note: </strong><br />
<br />
* The structural change from an excess supply of labor to one of labor shortage is documented in progress of many developed and developing countries as Lewis Turning Point (LTP).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the [inside]NSS report no. 551 (66/10/6) titled Status of Education and Vocational Training in India (66th Round)[/inside], July 2009-June 2010, published in March 2013, MoSPI, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf</a>:&nbsp;<br />
<br />
In the present survey, NSSO collected data on educational particulars like educational level attained &ndash; both general and technical, current attendance in educational institution, type of institution, vocational training received/ being received, etc. from the household members.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Status of Vocational Training Received/ being received</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Of the persons of age 15-59 years, about 1 per cent was receiving formal vocational training as on the date of survey, about 2 per cent reported to have received formal vocational training and another 5 per cent reported to have received non-formal vocational training. The proportion was lower in the case of females than in the case of males in both the rural and urban areas. Moreover, as expected, the proportions were higher in the urban areas than those in the rural areas.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Age Specific Rate for Formal Vocational Training Received</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The proportion of persons who received formal vocational training is observed to be the highest (2 per cent) in the age-group 20-24, in rural areas and it decreased gradually over the higher age-groups.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the urban areas, the proportion was the highest in the age-group 25-29 (6 per cent). When both rural and urban areas are considered, the proportion was the highest in the age-group 25-29 (3 per cent). The age-specific proportions for females were lower than those for males in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Field of Formal Vocational Training</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Among rural males, the most demanded field of training was &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (18 percent) followed by &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (17 percent), &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (16 percent), &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades (12 percent) in the rural areas; and in the urban areas the most demanded field of training was &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (30 percent) followed by &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (19 percent), &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (11 percent) and &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades&rsquo; (10 per cent).<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Among rural female, the highest demand for field of training was observed in &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (26 percent).This was followed by the &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical services related work&rsquo; (14 percent). Among the urban female, the choices in terms of proportions were &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (32 percent), &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical related work&rsquo; (9 percent).<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Institution of Formal Vocational Training</strong></em><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; About 32 per cent of rural males received/ receiving formal vocational training from &lsquo;industrial training institute/industrial training centres&rsquo; followed by 13 per cent from &lsquo;recognised motor driving schools&rsquo;. For rural females the highest proportion of persons received/receiving formal vocational training was observed for &lsquo;Tailoring, Embroidery and Stitch Craft Institutes&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the urban areas highest proportion of males received/receiving formal vocational training was observed for &lsquo;Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) / Industrial Training Centres and for female the highest was for &lsquo;Tailoring, Embroidery and Stitch Craft Institutes&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Helpfulness of Formal Vocational Training</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the rural area, nearly 19 percent reported the training as helpful in taking up self-employment activity compared to 14 per cent in urban areas and in rural areas 32 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up wage/salaried employment compared to 51 per cent in urban areas. Nearly 36 per cent in rural areas and 24 per cent in urban areas reported that the training was not helpful in getting a job.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the all-India level 59 percent of those received formal vocational training reported the training as helpful in getting a job (self-employment activity or wage/ salaried employment) - 16 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up self-employment activity and 44 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up wage/ salaried employment.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The graph below shows that, compared to the year 2004-05, the Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person), according to the principal and subsidiary statuses taken together, during 2005-06 for males did not change in rural areas but decreased by 1 percentage point in urban areas. However, for females there was a decline of 2 percentage points in rural areas and 3 percentage points in urban areas during the same period.<br />
<br />
<strong>Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person) in the usual status in different NSS rounds </strong></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><img alt="Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person) in the usual status in different NSS rounds" src="tinymce/uploaded/img.JPG" style="height:365px; width:505px" /> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><em><span style="font-size:small">Source: Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2005-06, NSS 62nd Round<br />
Note: * The Usual Status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity and usual subsidiary economic activity of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss).</span></em></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to [inside]Global Wage Report 2012-13[/inside]: Wages and equitable growth, ILO,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf</a>:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The authoritative sources of data on wage growth in India are the Annual Survey of Industries by the Central Statistics Office and the real wage index published by the Labour Bureau. Both data sources indicate that real wages declined in a majority of recent years, shrinking the purchasing power of wage earners. This would explain the many concerns expressed by workers in India about rapidly increasing prices, particularly food prices.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Analysis of the Employment&ndash;Unemployment Survey from the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), conducted every five years along with the Consumer Expenditure Survey, shows that salaried and casual workers saw a 150 per cent increase in their earnings&ndash; much higher than the 52 per cent increase in the consumer price index &ndash; in the five years between 2004/05 and 2009/10.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India&rsquo;s real wages fell 1% between 2008 and 2011, while labour productivity grew 7.6% in the same period. In contrast, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 11% in 2008-11, while labour productivity expanded 9%. India&rsquo;s real wage growth was 1% in 1999-2007, while labour productivity rose by 5%. In 1999-2007, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 13.5%, while labour productivity growth was 9%.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Using a different and non-comparable methodology, total hourly compensation costs in manufacturing were estimated at US$1.36 in China for 2008 and at US$1.17 in India for 2007 (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Although these differences are measured in current US dollars and therefore are dependent on exchange rate fluctuations, they nonetheless point towards the persistence of wide gaps in wages and labour productivity across the world.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In India, minimum wages paid through the National Rural Employment Generation Scheme (NREGS) appear to have reduced non-compliance with minimum wages in the private sector.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Monthly average wages adjusted for inflation&ndash;known as real average wages&ndash;grew globally by 1.2 per cent in 2011, down from 2.1 per cent in 2010 and 3 per cent in 2007. Omitting China, global real average wages grew at only 0.2 per cent in 2011, down from 1.3 per cent in 2010 and 2.3 per cent in 2007.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In developed economies, labour productivity has increased more than twice as much as wages since 1999. In the US, hourly labour productivity in the non-farm business sector increased by about 85 per cent while earnings only increased by about 35 per cent since about 1980. In Germany, labour productivity surged by almost a quarter over the past two decades while wages remained flat.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Labour Bureau, an attached office of the Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment has released the results of the second annual employment &amp; unemployment survey conducted in the country for the period 2011-2012. During the survey, data has been collected from a sample of 1,28,298 households, out of which 81,430 households are in the rural sector and the remaining 46,868 households in the urban sector. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the [inside]Report on Second Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12[/inside],</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf</a>,&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf</a>,&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf</a>: &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Based on the survey results, 50.8 per cent or majority of the households are found to be having self employment as the major source of income under agricultural and non-agricultural activities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; At all India level, 48.6 per cent persons are estimated to be self employed under the usual principal status (UPS)* approach followed by 19.7 per cent persons under wage/salary earners and rest 31.7 per cent persons under casual labourers category.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the rural areas, 11.1 per cent households are estimated to be having regular/wage salary earning as major source of income.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the urban areas, 42.3 percent households are estimated to be having regular wage/salary earnings as the major source of income followed by 34.4 per cent households under self employment category.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR)** is estimated to be 52.9 per cent under the usual principal status (UPS) approach at All India level.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the rural sector the LFPR is estimated to be 54.8 per cent as compared to 47.2 per cent in the urban sector under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Female LFPR is significantly lower as compared to male LFPR under the usual principal status approach. At All India level, female LFPR is estimated to be 25.4 per cent as compared to 77.4 per cent in male category.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR)*** is estimated to be 50.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The female WPR is estimated to be 23.6 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach as compared to the male WPR of 75.1 per cent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate**** is estimated to be 3.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In rural areas, unemployment rate is 3.4 per cent whereas in urban areas, the same is 5.0 per cent under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Despite relatively low LFPR, the unemployment rate is significantly higher among females as compared to males. At all India level, the female unemployment rate is estimated to be 6.9 per cent whereas for males, the unemployment rate is 2.9 per cent under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The survey results show that majority of the persons are employed in the primary sector. Under Agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, 52.9 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under the tertiary or services sector, 27.8 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under the manufacturing and construction sector i.e. the secondary sector, 19.3 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Note:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year. </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>In the report, results are compiled for all the labour force measures namely usual principal status (UPS) approach, usual principal &amp;&nbsp;subsidiary status (UPSS) approach, current daily status (CDS) approach and current weekly status (CWS) approach. </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>** Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is&nbsp;defined as the number of persons (employed plus unemployed) in the labour force per 1000 persons </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>*** Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the number of persons employed per 1000 persons </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>**** Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons in&nbsp;the labour force (employed &amp; unemployed) </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to [inside]Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in India, 2009-10 (released on 24 June, 2011)[/inside], Press Release, National Sample Survey Office, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/Press_Note_KI_E&amp;UE_66th_English.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/Press_Note_KI_E&amp;UE_66th_English.pdf</a>: &nbsp;<br />
<br />
The indicators on Employment and Unemployment in India in the 66th round of the survey are based on the Central Sample of 1,00,957 households (59,129 in rural areas and 41,828 in urban areas) surveyed from 7,402 sample villages in rural areas and 5,252 urban blocks spread over all States and Union Territories except in (i) interior villages of Nagaland situated beyond five kilometres of a bus route (ii) villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands which remain inaccessible throughout the year and (iii) Leh, Kargil and Poonch districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br />
<br />
<em>1. Distribution of Usual Status (ps+ss) workers according to employment status</em><br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, among all the workers, about 51.0 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 33.5 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 15.6 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among the workers in the rural areas, about 54.2 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 38.6 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 7.3 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among the workers in the urban areas, about 41.1 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 17.5 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 41.4 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
<em>2. Industry-wise distribution of workers according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, nearly 63 per cent of the male workers were engaged in the agricultural sector while in the secondary and tertiary sectors nearly 19 per cent and 18 per cent of the male workers were engaged. There was a higher dependence of female workers on agricultural sector: nearly 79 per cent of them were engaged in agricultural sector while secondary and tertiary sectors shared 13 per cent and 8 per cent of the female workers, respectively.<br />
<br />
&bull; The industry-wise distribution of workers in the urban areas was distinctly different from that of rural areas. In urban areas the share of the tertiary sector was dominant followed by that of secondary sector while agricultural sector engaged only a small proportion of total workers for both male and females. In urban areas, nearly 59 per cent of male workers and 53 per cent of the female workers were engaged in the tertiary sector. The secondary sector employed nearly 35 per cent of the male and 33 per cent of the female workers. The share of urban workforce in agriculture was nearly 6 per cent of male and 14 per cent for female workers.<br />
<br />
<em>3. Wage Rates of Regular Wage/Salaried Employees and Casual Labourers</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In urban areas, the average wage/salary was Rs. 365 per day and for the rural areas it was Rs. 232. In the rural areas, average wage/salary earnings per day received by male regular wage/ salaried employees was Rs. 249 and for females it was Rs. 156, indicating the female-male wage ratio as 0.63. In urban areas, male wage rate was Rs. 377 against the female wage rate of Rs. 309, indicating female-male wage ratio as 0.82.<br />
<br />
&bull; Wage rates (per day) for casual labour in works other than public works in rural areas was Rs. 93 and in urban areas it was Rs. 122. In the rural areas, average wage/salary earnings per day received by male casual labours engaged in works other than public works was Rs. 102 and for females it was Rs. 69 while in urban areas, the wage rates for casual labours in work other than public works was Rs. 132 for males and Rs. 77 for females.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, wage rates (per day) for casual labour in public works other than MGNREG public works was Rs. 98 for males and Rs. 86 for females. For casual labour in MGNREG public works, wage rate (per day) in rural areas was Rs. 91 for males and Rs. 87 for females.<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note: </strong>Three reference periods used in NSS surveys are (i) one year, (ii) one week and (iii) each day of the reference week. Based on these three periods, three different measures of activity status are arrived at. The activity status determined on the basis of the reference period of one year is known as the Usual Status (US) of a person, that determined on the basis of a reference period of one week is known as the Current Weekly Status (CWS) of the person and the activity status determined on the basis of the engagement on each day during the reference week is known as the Current Daily Status (CDS) of the person. In US approach, there are two indicators viz. one based on principal activity called Usual Principal Status (ps) and other based on both principal and subsidiary activities taken together called US (ps+ss). The unit of measurements in case of US and CWS is persons and in case on CDS, it is person days.</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Key findings of the [inside]Global Employment Trends 2011[/inside]: The challenge of a jobs recovery, International Labour Organization,<br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_150440.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_150440.pdf</a> are as follows:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>India specific points</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The report notes that the largest reductions in poverty continue to be recorded in eastern Asia, with poverty rates in China expected to fall to around 5 per cent in 2015. Poverty rates in India are expected to decline from 51 per cent in 1990 to 24 per cent in 2015, with the number of people living in extreme poverty expected to decrease by 188 million.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Economic growth in the South Asia region as a whole declined from 9.1 per cent in 2007 to 5.9 per cent in 2008 and to 5.5 per cent in 2009. It is estimated that the region&rsquo;s economy grew by 8.9 per cent in 2010, led by India, which registered rapid growth of 9.7 per cent in 2010.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A larger share of women are engaged in vulnerable employment compared to men in South Asia, with gender-based gaps particularly large in India, Nepal and Pakistan. South Asia has the highest rate of vulnerable employment among all regions in the world, at 78.5 per cent of total employment in 2009. The rate has declined modestly in recent years, down from 81.1 per cent in 1999.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Unemployment remains elevated</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of unemployed globally stood at 205 million in 2010, essentially unchanged from the year earlier and 27.6 million higher than in 2007, with little hope for this figure to revert to precrisis levels in the near term. The global unemployment rate stood at 6.2 per cent in 2010, versus 6.3 per cent in 2009, but still well above the rate of 5.6 per cent in 2007.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The ILO projects a global unemployment rate of 6.1 per cent, equivalent to 203.3 million unemployed, through 2011. 55 per cent of the increase in global unemployment between 2007 and 2010 occurred in the Developed Economies and European Union (EU) region, while the region only accounts for 15 per cent of the world&rsquo;s labour force. In several economies in the developing world, such as Brazil, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Uruguay, unemployment rates have actually fallen below their pre-crisis levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The elevated level of global unemployment stands in stark contrast to the recovery that has been seen in several key macroeconomic indicators: real global GDP, private consumption, gross fixed investment and world trade had all recovered by 2010, surpassing pre-crisis levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; There has been an uneven recovery in labour markets, with a continued rise in joblessness in the Developed Economies and European Union region, a steady to slightly improving unemployment picture in most developing regions.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; An estimated 1.53 billion workers were in vulnerable employment in 2009, corresponding to a vulnerable employment rate of 50.1 per cent. There were 630 million workers (20.7 per cent of all workers in the world) living with their families at the extreme US$ 1.25 a day level in 2009. This corresponds to an additional 40 million working poor, 1.6 percentage points higher than projected on the basis of pre-crisis trends.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>A recovery in growth that has not brought about a comparable recovery in employment</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; At the global level, the employment-to-population ratio, which indicates whether the employment-generating capacity of a country or region is rising or falling, declined from 61.7 in 2007 to 61.2 in 2009 and is estimated at 61.1 per cent in 2010. Many economies are simply not generating sufficient employment opportunities to absorb growth in the working-age population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 64 countries for which quarterly data are available, as of the second quarter in 2010, the number of countries with falling employment-to-population ratios was still twice the number that had rising ratios. It is clear that the ongoing economic recovery is not yet leading to a sufficient expansion in employment opportunities in many countries.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Industrial employment hardest hit</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Total global employment in industry declined slightly in 2009, which is a major divergence from the historical annual growth rate of 3.4 per cent over the period from 2002 to 2007. Employment in agriculture grew in 2009, which also represented a divergence versus historical trends.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Growing number of discouraged youth</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of unemployed youth (aged 15&ndash;24) is estimated to have declined from 79.6 million in 2009 to 77.7 million in 2010, though this is still well above the 2007 level of 73.5 million. The global youth unemployment rate stood at 12.6 per cent in 2010, up from 11.8 per cent in 2007, but down slightly from 12.8 per cent in 2009.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; However, unemployment rates understate the severe extent to which the crisis impacted young people as labour force participation among youth was strongly affected by the crisis. Across 56 countries with available data, there are 1.7 million fewer youth in the labour market than expected based on longer term trends, indicating that discouragement among youth has risen sharply. These discouraged youth are not counted among the unemployed because they are not actively seeking work.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Trends in labour productivity and real wages reveal pressure on employment quality</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Labour productivity growth turned negative in 2009, declining by 1.4 per cent versus growth of 3.3 per cent in 2007. In 2010, global productivity growth recovered to 3.1 per cent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The problem of delayed labour market recovery is seen not only in the lag between output growth and employment growth and reduced unemployment but also in some countries in the lag between productivity growth and resumption in real wage growth. This phenomenon can threaten future recovery prospects, given the strong linkages between employment and growth in real wages on the one hand and consumption on the other.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Stagnating progress in reducing vulnerable employment and slowed progress in reducing working poverty</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; On the basis of available data, the current estimate of the number of workers in vulnerable employment in 2009 is 1.53 billion, which corresponds to a global vulnerable employment rate of 50.1 per cent. The incidence of vulnerable employment remained roughly flat between 2008 and 2009, versus a steady and substantial average decline in the years preceding the crisis.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The estimated working poverty rate at the extreme US$ 1.25 level for 2009 is 20.7 per cent, which is 1.6 percentage points higher than the rate projected on the basis of the pre-crisis trend. This amounts to around 40 million more working poor at the extreme US$ 1.25 level in 2009 than would have been expected on the basis of pre-crisis trends. The share of workers living with their families below the US$ 2 a day poverty line is estimated at around 39 per cent, or 1.2 billion workers worldwide.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>An improved global economy, yet downside risks predominate in 2011</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Following a contraction in 2009, the global economy grew at a rapid pace of 4.8 per cent in 2010. The recovery is expected to continue in 2011, though at a more moderate pace (4.2 per cent). However, due to the fragile state of the labour market in many countries, high levels of public debt and continued vulnerabilities in the financial sector and private households, downside risks predominate.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; On the basis of current macroeconomic forecasts, the global unemployment rate is projected at 6.1 per cent in 2011, corresponding to global unemployment of 203.3 million. This represents little improvement over 2010 levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Report on Employment &amp; Unemployment Survey (2009-10)[/inside], Ministry of Labour and Employment, Labour Bureau, October, 2010 </span><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/Final_Report_Emp_Unemp_2009_10.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/Final_Report_Emp_Unemp_2009_10.pdf</a>: &nbsp; </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The present Employment-Unemployment survey (prepared by the Labour Bureau) has been conducted in 28 States/UTs spread across the country in which about 99 per cent of the country&rsquo;s population resides. &nbsp;</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Under the survey, 45,859 household schedules have been canvassed of which 24,653 are rural and 21,206 are urban household schedules. A total of 2,33,410 persons have been interviewed to gather information from 45,859 households. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Information in the present Employment-Unemployment survey has been collected for the fixed reference period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey reveals that 45.5 percent of the overall working population is employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Only 8.9 percent of the working population is engaged in manufacturing, 8.8 percent is engaged in community services group and 7.5 in construction industry. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the rural areas, 57.6 percent of the working population is engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 7.2 percent of the working population is engaged in construction industry and 6.7 percent of the population is employed in manufacturing. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the urban areas, 9.9 percent of the working population is engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 8.6 percent of the working population is engaged in construction industry and 15.4 percent of the population is employed in manufacturing. Nearly 17.3 percent of the working population in urban India is employed in wholesale, retail etc. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey report acknowledges that agriculture sector is projected to generate no additional employment during the Eleventh Plan period. Employment in manufacturing is however expected to grow at 4 per cent while construction and transport &amp; communication are expected to grow at around 8.2 per cent and 7.6 per cent, respectively. The projected increase in total labour force during 11th Plan is 45 million. As against this, 58 million employment opportunities are targeted to be created during the Eleventh Plan. This is expected to reduce unemployment rate to below 5 per cent. However, the results of the present survey report shows that at the overall level the unemployment rate is estimated at 94, which imply that 9.4 per cent of the labour force is unemployed and looking for jobs. In absolute terms about 40 million persons are found unemployed based on the survey results at overall level of the State/UT&rsquo;s surveyed. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;A majority of the estimated unemployed persons (80 per cent) is in the rural sector at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Unemployment rate in rural India is 10.1 percent, whereas unemployment rate in urban India is 7.3 percent. Unemployment rate among male is 8.0 percent and among female is 14.6 percent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Comparison of Labour Bureau&rsquo;s present survey results for the year 2009-10 with NSSO&rsquo;s Employment-Unemployment survey results for 2007-08, reveals that the unemployment rate derived on the basis of the Bureau&rsquo;s survey is quite high. Higher unemployment rate may be parting attributed to as much as 10 per cent difference in the contribution of agriculture sector to total employment estimated in the present survey vis-&agrave;-vis the NSSO 2007-08 survey estimates. While the shift of workforce from agriculture to other sectors is a positive trend for a fast growing economy, the steep reduction in lower share of agriculture employment based on the Bureau&rsquo;s survey could be attributed to lack of adequate probing skills of the Contract Investigators.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Findings of the survey show that out of 1000 persons, 351 persons are in the employed category, 36 in the unemployed category and the rest 613 persons are out of labour force at overall level of the States/UT&rsquo;s surveyed. Within the employed category, out of 351 persons, 154 are self employed, 59 are regular wage/salaried and the remaining 138 are in casual labour category at overall level. In the rural sector for every 1000 persons, 356 persons are in the employed category, 40 are unemployed and the rest 604 persons are not in the labour force. In the urban sector out of every 1000 persons, the number of employed persons is 335, number of unemployed is 27 and the remaining 638 persons are not in the labour force. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Majority of the females in the urban sector (86 per cent) and the rural sector (81 per cent) are out of labour force.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It is seen that in the self employed person&rsquo;s category, maximum proportion of persons is engaged in agriculture, forestry &amp; fishing group (572 out of 1000 persons) followed by wholesale and retail trade (135 out of 1000 persons) at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the second employment category of regular wage/salaried person, maximum proportion of the employed is engaged in the community services (227 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by 153 in manufacturing industry.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the third employment category i.e. casual labour; a majority of the persons are in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry group (467 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by 148 in the construction sector.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey results reveal that majority of the employed persons are employed in proprietary type of enterprises (494 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by public/private limited companies (200 persons) etc at overall level. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;At the level of rural and urban sector also, majority of the workers are reportedly employed in the proprietary type of enterprises (517 persons and 428 persons respectively out of 1000 persons).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey results reveal that at overall level out of 1000 persons, 157 persons are getting paid leave or are eligible for paid leave. The industry wise break up shows that in community services group, a maximum of 443 persons out of 1000 persons are eligible for paid leave. On the other hand in agriculture, forestry &amp; fisheries group, a minimum of 54 persons out of 1000 persons have reported paid leave at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In case of other social security benefits such as the provident fund, gratuity, health care &amp; maternity benefits, pension etc., 163 persons out of 1000 persons have reported receiving some social security benefits in the enterprises in which they are employed. Again in community services group, a maximum of 400 persons out of 1000 persons have reported social security benefits in the units in which they are employed. In agriculture, forestry &amp; fishery group however a minimum of 82 persons out of 1000 persons have reported receiving social security benefits.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]World Social Security Report 2010/11[/inside]: Providing coverage in times of crisis and beyond, which has been produced by the International Labour Organization (ILO), <a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_146566.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_146566.pdf</a>: &nbsp; </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The notion of social security used in this report has two main (functional) dimensions, namely &ldquo;income security&rdquo; and &ldquo;availability of medical care&rdquo;.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Only one-third of countries globally (inhabited by 28 per cent of the global population) have comprehensive social protection systems covering all branches of social security (plus social assistance) as defined in Convention No. 102 and Recommendation No. 67.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world&rsquo;s working-age population (and their families) have effective access to comprehensive social protection systems.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Although a larger percentage of the world&rsquo;s population has access to health-care services than to various cash benefits, nearly one-third has no access to any health facilities or services at all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Many people in countries such as Cambodia, India and Pakistan shoulder up to 80 per cent of total health expenditures, with only a small portion of the population being covered by any form of social health protection mechanisms providing medical benefits such as tax-funded services or social, national or community-based insurances. High out-of-pocket payments are a major cause of impoverishment, and so it is not accidental that there is a strong correlation between the shares of out-of-pocket expenditure in a country and poverty incidence there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;30&ndash;36 per cent of the world&rsquo;s population has no access to the services of an adequate number of skilled medical professionals. Low-income countries in Africa and Asia show the highest levels of access deficits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In low-income countries no more than 35 per cent of all women in rural areas have access to professional health services, while in urban areas the access rate amounts to an average of about 70 per cent, which is still more than 20 percentage points lower than the access in high-income countries (where it is nearly complete).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Coverage by old-age pension schemes around the world, apart from in the developed countries, is concentrated on formal sector employees, mainly in the civil service and larger enterprises. The highest coverage is found in North America and Europe, the lowest in Asia and Africa.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;India&rsquo;s National Old-Age Pension Scheme, financed by central and state resources, reaches one-fourth of all the elderly: about half of pensioners who live in poverty. And in Brazil, social assistance pensions lift about 14 million people out of extreme poverty. A newly introduced social security scheme helped the Republic of Korea to adjust more smoothly to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Worldwide, nearly 40 per cent of the population of working age is legally covered by contributory old-age pension schemes. In North America and Europe this number is nearly twice as high, while in Africa less than one-third of the working-age population is covered even by legislation. Effective coverage is significantly lower than legal coverage. With the exception of North America and to a lesser extent Western Europe, effective coverage is quite low in all regions. In sub-Saharan Africa only 5 per cent of the working-age population is effectively covered by contributory programmes, while this share is about 20 per cent in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;While in high-income countries 75 percent of persons aged 65 or over are receiving some kind of pension, in low-income countries less than 20 per cent of the elderly receive pension benefits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Present entitlements to unemployment benefits tend to be restricted to those in formal employment, and exist mostly in high- and middle-income countries. Of 184 countries studied, statutory unemployment social security schemes exist in only 78 countries (42 per cent), often covering only a minority of their labour force. Coverage rates in terms of the proportion of unemployed who receive benefits are lowest in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (less than 10 per cent).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the informal economy prevailing in many low income countries, conditions and safety of work are often dramatically bad, accidents and work-related diseases widespread and with no protection at all for their victims. Globally, estimated legal coverage represents less than 30 per cent of the working-age population, which is less than 40 per cent of the economically active.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;On average, 17.2 per cent of global GDP is allocated to social security. However, these expenditures tend to be concentrated in higher-income countries.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Unemployment insurance schemes are in place in only 64 of the 184 countries for which information is available. Social assistance, public works and similar programmes also have very limited coverage globally.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Globally slightly over a quarter of the world&rsquo;s adult population (one-third of adult men and one-fifth of adult women) is employed, whether formally or informally, as employees. If one looks only at those who have some kind of employment, less than half globally have the status of wage or salary workers. However, while in developed economies nearly 85 per cent of all employed are employees, the figure is not much more than 20 per cent in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, less than 40 per cent in South-East Asia and the Pacific, slightly more than 40 per cent in&nbsp; East Asia and about 60 per cent in North Africa, the Middle East and Latin America and the Caribbean &ndash; but not all of them are in formal employment and thus have access to statutory social security benefits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;People without social security coverage in developing countries usually work in the informal rather than the formal economy. No access to social security coverage is usually part of the definition of informal employment.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America a minority of employed people are employees. In many African and South-East Asian countries especially less than 30 per cent of the employed work as wage workers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In Asia, Africa and some parts of Latin America, there are large gaps in the scope of social security schemes legally available to at least certain groups of workers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In Africa, North and Latin America, the Middle East and CIS public health-care financing comes mainly from general taxation, while in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe social insurance financing dominates.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The allocation for the NREGS programme in India from the national budget for the financial year 2006&ndash;07 was 0.3 per cent of GDP. Official cost estimates of the scheme, once fully operational; suggest that the budget could peak at 1.5 per cent of GDP. The programme is regarded as one of the largest rights-based social protection initiatives in the world, reaching around 40 million households living below the poverty line.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Report titled [inside]Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 2007-08[/inside] by National Sample Survey (NSS), MoSPI, Govt. of India is (</span><a href="http://mospi.gov.in/NSS_Press_note_531_25may10.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://mospi.gov.in/NSS_Press_note_531_25may10.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">) based on the household survey on Employment and Unemployment &amp; Migration Particulars conducted in its 64th round. The field work of the nationwide survey was carried out during July 2007 to June 2008. The survey covered a random sample of 5,72,254 persons, from 79,091 rural households and 46,487 urban households spread over 7921 villages and 4668 urban blocks in the country. The Report states that:<br />
<br />
<strong>A. Household and Population Characteristics</strong></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 72 per cent of the households belonged to rural India and accounted for nearly 74 per cent of the total population.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Average household size in India was 4.5. The rural household size (4.7) was slightly higher than urban household size (4.2).</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>B. Labour Force and Work Force</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the usual status (ps+ss), 41 per cent of population belonged to the labour force. This proportion was 43 per cent for rural and 37 per cent for urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The labour force participation rate (LFPR) was about 56 per cent of rural males and 29 per cent of rural females. The corresponding proportions in the urban areas were 58 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 40 per cent of the population in the country were employed according usual status (ps+ss). The worker population ratio (WPR) was about 42 per cent in the rural areas and 35 per cent in the urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The male WPR in both the rural and urban areas were considerably higher than female WPR. In both the rural and urban areas, male WPR was nearly 55 per cent. Compared to this, the female WPR was 29 per cent in rural areas and 14 per cent in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The WPRs obtained according to current daily status were lower than those obtained in the current weekly status, which, in turn, were lower than those according to usual status rates: WPR in India, was 34 per cent as per current daily status, 37 per cent according to current weekly status, and it was 40 per cent according to usual status.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2004-2005 and 2007-08, in both rural and urban areas, WPR for males in usual status (ps+ss) remained unchanged at 55 per cent. However, for females, it decreased by about 4 percentage points for rural areas (from 33 per cent to 29 per cent) and about 3 percentage points for urban areas (from 17 per cent to 14 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural India, among the usually employed (ps+ss), about 67 per cent of males and 84 per cent of females were engaged in agriculture sector. The corresponding figures in 1977-78 were 81 per cent and 88 per cent, respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In urban India, the &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&rsquo; sector engaged about 28 per cent of the male workers, while in &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; nearly 24 per cent of the male workers were engaged. For urban females, &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sector accounted for the highest proportion (38 per cent) of workers, followed by manufacturing (28 per cent) and agriculture (15 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Considerable gender differentials in the wage rates (per day) for regular wage/salaried employees were observed. The average wage rate for regular wage/salaried employees, of age 15-59 years, in rural areas was 175.30 for males and Rs. 108.14 for females and in the urban areas, wage rate for males was Rs. 276.04 against Rs. 212.86 for females.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural areas, average male wage rate (of workers of age 15-59 years) for casual labour other than MGNREG public works was Rs. 76.02 and it was Rs. 70.66 for females.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">There was no gender differential in wage rate for casual labour in MGNREG public works, the wage rate (of workers of age 15-59 years) was nearly Rs. 79.00 for both rural male and rural female.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural sector, on an average, Rs. 66.59 was earned in a day by a male casual labourer (of age 15-59 years) engaged in casual labours other than public works, whereas a female casual labourer earned Rs. 48.41 a day &ndash; showing a difference of about Rs. 18. In the urban areas, a male casual labourer engaged in works other than public works earned Rs. 86.58 in a day and a female, Rs. 51.34 in a day.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>C. Unemployment Rate</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">At the all-India level, unemployment rate was nearly 8 per cent in the current daily status approach. The unemployment rate stood at nearly 4 per cent in current weekly status approach and 2 per cent in the usual status approach, i.e., in usual (adjusted.).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural areas, female unemployment rate stood at 8 per cent in current daily status compared to 9 per cent for males while in the urban areas, female unemployment rate in the current daily status was nearly 10 for cent which was 3 percentage point higher compared to male unemployment rate.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>D. Underemployment</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of usually employed males (ps+ss) who are found to be not employed (unemployed+not in the labour force) during the week preceding the date of survey (current weekly status) was 4 per cent in the rural and 2 per cent in the urban areas. The proportion of usually employed females (ps+ss) not employed (unemployed+ not in the labour force) during the week preceding the date of survey was as high as 19 per cent in the rural and 7 per cent in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of person-days without work (unemployed+ not in the labour force) of the usually employed (ps+ss) was about 36 per cent and 19 per cent for females in rural and urban areas respectively as against 11 per cent and 5 per cent for males in rural and urban areas respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of person-days on which persons with some work during the reference week (according to the current weekly status) were without work (unemployed+not in the labour force) was about 7 for rural males, 21 per rural females, 3 for urban males and 12 for urban females.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><span style="font-size:small">Note:<br />
<br />
Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is obtained by dividing the number of persons in the labour force by total population<br />
<br />
Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.<br />
<br />
Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status: The Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) concept was introduced to widen the UPS concept to include even those who were outside the labour force on the basis of the majority time criterion but had been employed during some part of the year on a usual basis. In the NSS 61st Round Survey, all those who were either un-employed or out of labour force but had worked for at least 30 days over the reference year were treated as subsidiary status workers. UPSS is thus a hybrid concept incorporating both the major time criterion and priority to work status.<br />
<br />
The UPSS measure was used on the ground that it was stable and inclusive: it related to a picture emerging from a long reference period, and even persons working for 30 days or more, but not working for the major part of the year, were included. However, those outside the UPS labour force, seeking or available for work for more than 30 days during the preceding 365 days, were not included in the UPSS labour force.<br />
<br />
Current Weekly Status: The concept of Current Weekly Status (CWS) has been in use in the labour force surveys in India even before 1970, when the recommendations of the Dantwala Committee became available. It was primarily because the agencies like International Labour Organization (ILO) use estimates of employment and unemployment rates based on weekly reference period for international comparisons. Under CWS, a person is classified to be in labour force, if s/he has either worked or is seeking and/ or available for work at least one hour during the reference period of one week preceding the date of survey. The CWS participation rates also relate to persons and hence may be roughly compared with those obtained by using UPS and UPSS measurements. However, the reference periods are different and UPS, unlike UPSS and CWS, is based on majority time and does not accord priority to work and unemployment.<br />
<br />
Current Daily Status: The Dantwala Committee proposed the use of Current Daily Status (CDS) rates for studying intensity of work. These are computed on the basis of the information on employment and unemployment recorded for the 14 half days of the reference week. The employment statuses during the seven days are recorded in terms of half or full intensities. An hour or more but less than four hours is taken as half intensity and four hours or more is taken as full intensity. An advantage of this approach was that it was based on more complete information; it embodied the time utilisation, and did not accord priority to labour force over outside the labour force or work over unemployment, except in marginal cases. A disadvantage was that it related to person-days, not persons.</span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><span style="font-size:small">**page**</span><br />
<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The [inside]Annual Report to the people of India on Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment, July, 2010[/inside], (</span><a href="http://labour.nic.in/Report_to_People.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://labour.nic.in/Report_to_People.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">) follows a macro framework for analysing emerging employment and labour market situations during the next 5 to 10 years. The report is based mainly on secondary sources of data. Demographic information is obtained from Census of India and information on labour market is based on the employment and unemployment surveys conducted by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). According to the report:</span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Based on the 2004-05 NSSO survey, the estimates of total employment in the country varies from 385 million (as per CDS measure) to 459 million (as per UPSS measure).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall assessment of employment situation based on UPSS in the country over relatively two longer periods, i.e.,1983 to 1993-94 (Period I-10.5 years) and 1993-94 to 2004-05 (Period II- 11 years) suggests that employment growth in period I was 2.06% per annum as against 1.87% in the period II.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment estimates for 2004-05 varied from 10.8 million (as per usual status - widely referred to as &bdquo;open unemployment&acirc;&euro;&Yuml;) to 35 million (as per daily status which includes both open unemployment and underemployment).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Analysis of unemployment data for the year 2004-05 reveals that unemployment rates are very high in urban areas, particularly, in the age group of 15-24 years. Female unemployment rate in the age group of 20-24 years is the highest at approximately 27%. Among males, the highest unemployment rate is reported in the 15-19 years age group both in rural as well as urban areas. However, in the 20-24 years age group, male unemployment rates are 12% and 16% in rural and urban areas respectively. Overall, in rural areas unemployment among youth (age 15-24 years) is approximately 12 to 15%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Based on the employment elasticity with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) observed during the period 1994-2005, the employment for 2009-10 is estimated to be 506 million with an average annual growth rate of 1.97% for the period 2004-05 to 2009-2010. The labour force for 2009-10 is estimated to be 520 million.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In India, bulk of the employment (approximately 57%) falls in the category of self employed. Approximately 60% of the rural labour force and 45% of the urban labour force is self-employed.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In 2004-05, average casual wage for males and females was just Rs. 55 and Rs. 35 respectively in rural areas and Rs. 75 and Rs. 44 respectively in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Gender bias in casual wage payment is low in rural areas (0.63) than in urban areas (0.58).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 96% of female employment is in the unorganised sector as against about 91% of males. In urban areas, the percentage of unorganised sector workers is close to 65-70%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Approximately 22% workers were estimated to be below the poverty line in 2004-05. This essentially implies that out of a total of 459.1 million workers (UPSS) in 2004-05 approximately about 102 million were poor.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural areas, agriculture constitutes up to 68% of the total rural employment. Approximately 81% female workers and 66% male workers in rural areas are engaged in agriculture.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Although diversification of the female workforce to non-farm activities in rural areas has been limited up to 2 to 3% since 1993-94, the same in case of male workers has been to the extent of 7 to 8% during the same period.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Although over the years, incidence of child labour in the country has declined from around 5% in 1993-94 to approximately 3% in 2004-05, children continue to form a sizeable section of labour force in several fields of employment. Currently, total magnitude of child labour in India is estimated to be approximately 10 million. States like Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi etc. are having relatively higher concentration of child labour.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Census projection report shows that the proportion of population in the working age group (15-59 years) is likely to increase from approximately 58% in 2001 to more than 64% by 2021. In absolute numbers, there will be approximately 63.5 million new entrants to the working age group of 15-59 years between 2011 and 2016. Bulk of this increase in the population is likely to take place in relatively younger age group of 20-35 years. Such a trend would make India as one of the youngest nations in the world.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In 2004-05, the estimates of total labour force in the country varied from nearly 420 millions (as per Current Daily Status-CDS) to nearly 470 million (as per Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status-UPSS). The difference between the two estimates essentially arises because the lower estimate of 420 million does not capture those persons who join labour market for short periods of time.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Only 25 to 30% women in rural and 15 to 18% in urban areas participate in labour market. One of the reasons of low participation of women in labour force is the non-recognition of a number of women centric works as economic activities (such as cooking, collection of fuel and fodder, house and utensils cleaning etc.). Moreover, variety of social and family related constraints compel women to confine themselves to household activities at their prime working age. Early exit of women (probably post marital age) from labour market is particularly reflected in urban areas where women face inadequate social and family support system.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2005-06[/inside], National Sample Survey 62nd Round:</span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Compared to 1993-94, during 2005-06, unemployment rates in terms of the usual principal status, increased by nearly 1 percentage point, except that for females in urban areas, where they remained virtually unchanged. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2004-2005 and 2005-06, work participation rate (WPR) in the usual status approach in rural areas, remained unchanged at 55 per cent for males and it decreased by about 2 percentage points for females, from 33 per cent to 31 per cent. In urban areas, WPR decreased by about 1 percentage point for males and about 3 percentage points for females. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Among rural males, the proportion of self-employed had fallen from 61 per cent in 1983 to 57 percent in 2005-06.&nbsp; On the other hand for females, the proportion remained at the level of 1983 (62 per cent) in 2005-06. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Distinct gender differential in usual status WPR was observed: 55 per cent for males and 31 per cent for females in the rural areas, and 54 per cent for males and 14 per cent for females in the urban areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of person-days without work of the usually employed was about 35 per cent and 18 per cent for females in rural and urban India, respectively as against 11 and 5 per cent for males in rural and urban India, respectively </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural India, there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of males engaged in &lsquo;secondary sector (including mining and quarrying)&rsquo; &ndash; from 10 per cent in 1983 to 17 percent in 2005-06 for males and 7 per cent to 12 per cent for females. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Among the persons of age 15 years and above in the rural areas, only 5 per cent got work, 7 per cent sought but did not get work and nearly 88 per cent did not even seek work in public works. For males, nearly 6 per cent got work, 8 per cent sought but did not get work and 85 per cent did not seek work in public works. The corresponding figures for females were, 3, 6 and 91 respectively.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of persons who got work in public works decreased with the increase in the MPCE (monthly per capita expenditure) for both males and females. The proportion in the top MPCE class (Rs. 690 and above) for males was only about one-fifth of that in the bottom MPCE class (less than Rs. 320) &ndash; nearly 9 per cent in the bottom MPCE class and nearly 2 per cent in the top MPCE class. For females this ratio was about one-fourth &ndash; nearly 4 per cent in the bottom MPCE class and nearly 1 per cent in the top MPCE class.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The average number of days worked in public works, during the last 365 days, by males and females was almost the same- 17 for males and 18 for females. The maximum number of days worked, for males, was in the top MPCE class (Rs. 690 and above) &ndash; 24 days during the last 365 days. For females maximum number of days worked was in the MPCE class (Rs. 510 &ndash; Rs. 690) -&nbsp; 23 days during the last 365 days. </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&nbsp;<br />
<br />
According to [inside]Women in labour markets: Measuring progress and identifying challenges, March 2010[/inside], International Labour Office, Geneva,</span><br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_123835.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_123835.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">:<br />
<br />
<strong>Labour utilization</strong> </span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The overall picture of the global capacity to tap the productive potential of its people is one in which nearly half (48.4 per cent) of the productive potential of the female population remains unutilized (compared to 22.3 per cent for men).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 1980 and 2008, the rate of female labour force participation rate (LFPR) increased from 50.2 to 51.7 per cent while the male rate decreased slightly from 82.0 to 77.7 per cent. As a result, the gender gap in labour force participation rates has narrowed slightly from 32 to 26 percentage points.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Of all people employed in the world, 40 per cent are women. This share has not changed over the last ten years.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The share of women above the working age (15 years and over in most countries) who are employed (the employment-to-population ratio) was 48.0 per cent in 2009 compared to a male employment-to-population ratio (EPR) of 72.8 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In absolute numbers, worldwide there were equal numbers of women and men above the age of 15 years in 2009 (2.5 billion of each), but among these only 1.2 billion women were employed as opposed to 1.8 billion men.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">More than six in ten women remain economically inactive in three regions: South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Labour underutilization</strong> </span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall, there is not a significant difference between the sexes when it comes to global unemployment rates but the female rate is consistently slightly higher than the male. The female unemployment rate in 2009 was 7.0 per cent compared to the male rate of 6.3 percent. Also at the country level, the majority of countries have higher unemployment rates for females than males (113 countries out of 152) and 30 countries showed female rates that exceeded male rates by more than 5 percentage points. </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Female employment: Where and how women work</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The share of women in wage and salaried work grew during the last ten years from 42.8 per cent in 1999 to 47.3 per cent in 2009 whereas the share of vulnerable employment decreased from 55.9 to 51.2 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The shares of persons working in vulnerable employment are high for both sexes, especially in the world&rsquo;s poorest regions, but still higher for women than for men (51.2 per cent for women and 48.2 per cent for men in 2009).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Out of the total number of employed women in 2008, 37.1 per cent worked in agriculture and 46.9 per cent in services. Male sectoral shares in comparison were 33.1 per cent in agriculture and 40.4 per cent in services.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>The current economic crisis</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global female unemployment rate increased from 6.0 per cent in 2007 to 7.0 per cent in 2009, slightly more than the male rate which rose from 5.5 to 6.3 per cent. However, in four of nine regions &ndash; Developed Economies &amp; European Union, Central &amp; South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, East Asia and South-East Asia &amp; the Pacific &ndash; the male unemployment rates increased slightly more than the female rates over the same period.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Female unemployment rate increased from 14.4 to 15.0 per cent between 2007 and 2009 while the male rate remained constant at 7.7 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Global Employment Trends by International Labour Organization (ILO), January 2010[/inside],</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_120471.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_120471.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">:&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Developed Economies and European Union, Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, and Latin America and the Caribbean are estimated to have had negative growth rates in 2009, with the fall in annual growth rates between 2008 and 2009 exceptionally large in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, at 11.0 percentage points. Only in East Asia and South Asia economic growth rates are estimated to have been 5 per cent or more in 2009. In 2007, all regions outside the Developed Economies and European Union recorded growth rates exceeding 5 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">On the basis of currently available labour market information and the most recent revisions in GDP growth, the global unemployment rate for 2009 is estimated at 6.6 per cent, with a confidence interval (CI) from 6.3 to 6.9 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The number of unemployed persons is estimated at 212 million in 2009, with a CI from 202 to 221 million. Based on the point estimate (212 million), this means an increase of almost 34 million over the number of unemployed in 2007, and most of this increase occurred in 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global employment-to-population rate (point estimate) dropped from 60.9 per cent in 2008 to 60.4 per cent in 2009, with a CI from 60.2 to 60.6 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The largest change in employment-topopulation rates occurred in the Developed Economies and the European Union (decrease by 1.8 percentage points), in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS (minus 1.4 percentage points), and in Latin America and the Caribbean (minus 0.9 points), with more limited decreases in other regions.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global employment growth rate was 0.7 per cent in 2009, less than half the growth rate of the working-age population of 1.5 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Growth in output per worker are negative in all regions except East Asia, South Asia and North Africa. The largest fall in output per worker occurred in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non- EU) &amp; CIS, minus 4.7 per cent (with a CI between -4.9 and -4.3 per cent), thus reversing part of the gains that were made in the first half of the decade.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2008 and 2009, the unemployment rate for women increased by 0.8 percentage points and for men by 0.7 percentage points. This means that the gap in unemployment rates by sex increased slightly to 0.6 percentage points between 2008 and 2009, which is the same gap as ten years ago.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">On current estimates, the global youth unemployment rate rose by 1.3 percentage points from 12.1 per cent in 2008 to 13.4 per cent in 2009 (with a CI between 12.7 and 14.0 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Globally, youth labour force participation rate decreased by 3.4 percentage points between 1999 and 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The largest potential negative impact is in South Asia, South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where extreme working poverty may have increased by 9 percentage points or more in the worst case scenario. These estimates reflect that the fact that preceding the crisis, many workers were only just above the poverty line in these regions.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The regional unemployment rate in South Asia is estimated to have increased to 5.1 per cent in 2009, up from 4.8 per cent in 2008, but little changed from the rates registered between 2004 and 2007. Women face higher unemployment rates in the region, with a rate of 5.9 per cent in 2009 as compared with the male rate of 4.8 per cent. This is despite the fact that women participate to a much lesser extent in the labour market than men.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The South Asia region&rsquo;s youth unemployment rate is estimated at 10.7 per cent in 2009, up from 9.9 per cent in both 2008 and 2007.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">South Asia&rsquo;s unemployment rate is projected to decline slightly to 4.9 per cent in 2010, with a confidence interval of 4.6-5.3 per cent, as GDP growth is expected to edge higher to 6 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">While there has been much progress in extending social protection in the region through initiatives such as India&rsquo;s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which has provided a significant buffer during the crisis, helping to maintain levels of consumption, poverty and vulnerable forms of employment remain widespread and represent tremendous challenges that must be overcome.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">**page**</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector--NCEUS (2007)[/inside], Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, </span><a href="http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf </span></a></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agricultural labourers, estimated at 8.7 crore in 2004-05, constituted 34 per cent of about 25.3 crore agricultural workers i.e., farmers and agricultural labourers.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment rate for agricultural labourers by the CDS (current daily status) is quite high in rural areas by any standard; 16 per cent for males and 17 per cent for females.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The underemployment of usual status agricultural labourers by CDS rates increased during the decade 1993/94-2004/05. In fact, the CDS unemployment rate was exceptionally high at 16 per cent in 2004-05.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is the only statutory legislation, which ensures minimum wages to agricultural workers. In 2004-05, about 91 per cent of the agricultural labour mandays received wage rates below the National Minimum Wage and about 64 per cent below the NCRL minimum wage norm in rural areas. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The total number of agricultural workers in India has been estimated at 25.9 crore as of 2004-05.&nbsp; They form 57 per cent of the workers in the total workforce. About 24.9 crore of them are in rural areas and that works out to be 73 per cent of the total rural workforce of 34.3 crore. Their share in total rural unorganised sector employment is 96 per cent while in unorganized agricultural sector it is 98 per cent.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Nearly two-thirds of the agricultural workers (64 per cent) are self-employed, or farmers as we call them, and the remaining, a little over one-third (36 per cent), wageworkers.&nbsp; Almost all these wage workers (98 per cent) are casual labourers. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agricultural workers constituted 56.6 per cent of the total workers in 2004-05, down from 68.6 per cent in 1983. In rural areas, agricultural workers constituted 72.6 per cent of the total workers in 2004-05, down from 81.6 per cent in 1983.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Farmers form a major share within the agricultural workforce though there has been a gradual decline in their percentage from 63.5 in 1983 to 57.8 in 1999-00. Between 1999-00 and 2004-05, the percentage of cultivators increased to 64.2, the highest level achieved in 15 years&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A comparison of employment growth rates between 1983/1993-94 and 1993-94/2004-05 shows that the growth rate of agricultural employment decelerated sharply in the last decade, from 1.4 to 0.8 per cent. Although the growth of total employment also declined from 2.1 per cent during 1983/1993-94 to 1.9 per cent during 1993-94/2004-05, this deceleration was clearly not so sharp.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of households with no land possessed increased from 13 per cent in 1993-94 to 14.5 percent in 2004-05. The share of landlessness among the agricultural labourers was 19.7 per cent in 2004-05. More than 60 per cent of the agricultural labourers had sub-marginal holdings up to 0.4 hectares and that remained more or less constant over the period. Landlessness or small size of holdings forces the workers to engage as labourers to maintain their subsistence levels.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The [inside]India Labour Market Report 2008[/inside], which has been prepared by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and Adecco Institute, London,</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.macroscan.org/anl/may09/pdf/Indian_Labour.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.macroscan.org/anl/may09/pdf/Indian_Labour.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"> show:<br />
<br />
<strong>Self-Employment&nbsp; </strong></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of self-employment varies between 30 to 70 % across states. It appears that self-employment is more prominent in less developed states as states such as Bihar (61%), Uttar Pradesh (69%), Rajasthan (70 %) have high proportion of self-employment. It is low in comparatively developed states like Kerala (42%), Delhi (38%) and Goa (34%).&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The patterns reveal that both male and female in self employed categories have similar demographic profile. Overall, it can be seen that across all the age categories, more rural people are engaged in self-employment than urban people.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Females with lower educational attainment are more in proportion than males in the self-employed category. Overall, it appears that the majority of the self-employed have low levels of education.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In terms of sectoral composition of the self employed, it can be seen that self employment is highest in agriculture, followed by trade. Together these activities constitute nearly three fourth of the total self-employed.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Casual Labour Market&nbsp; </strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">At the all-India level, as per the NSSO 62nd round survey estimates, around 31 % of employment is in the casual labour market and female participation in the casual labour market is more as compared to male.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The rate of absorption in the casual labour market starts to decline after 34 years, indicating that, workers with a demographic dividend have a higher rate of absorption in the casual labour market.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Participation in the casual labour market reduces with improved education across gender and region. Majority of the casual labour force, is either illiterate, or just have primary level of education.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agriculture continues to be the main sector, where almost 70 % of the casual labour is absorbed, followed by the industry and service sector respectively. Comparatively developed states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Punjab have more casual labour in agriculture. Whereas in less developed states, like Rajastan, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttaranchal, the absorption of casual labour into the industry is high.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Within the industry, manufacturing is the main occupation for casual labour in many less developed states. Casual labour in construction also seems to be higher in predominately less developed states.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Population Not in Labour Force&nbsp;</strong> </span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Gender composition of persons not in labour force revels that the percentage of females is disproportionately higher as compared to males across regions.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of urban females not in labour force is higher than their rural counterparts. While in most states the percentage of rural females not in labour force is around 60-70%, the same figure for their urban counterparts is around 80%.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A high percentage of females, belonging to the age-group of 25 to 59, are out of labour force (47-57%), while the corresponding percentage for males is negligible (1-9%). Moreover, a significant percentage of females out of labour force also have high educational qualifications. As high as 68% graduate females are not in labour force, while the corresponding figures for male is only 13%. At the post-graduate level, percentage of females not in labour force is around 53% while it is only around 10% for males.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A huge proportion of females remain out of labour force due to domestic duties. Even in the working age-group of 25-59, the figure stands at around 60%. The figures are similar for both urban and rural females.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">State-wise distribution of persons who are not in labour force does not show much variation. The percentage figures are similar for males across states. However, there are significant variations among females not in labour force. The highest percentage of females not in labour force is in the Northern states of Delhi (92.10%) and Chattisgarh (89.50%), and the lowest is in the state of Himachal Pradesh (51.70%).&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The highest percentage (around 40%) of persons with disability is found within the males (higher in case of rural males), in the working age group of 25 to 60. A majority of this category is not literate.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Unemployment and Underemployment</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Unemployment rates are higher for urban persons as compared to rural persons. Urban women have the highest unemployment rates at 9.22% and rural women have the lowest rates at 7.31%.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A state wise analysis for unemployment trends reveals that comparatively developed states such as Goa and Kerala have the highest unemployment rates of 11.39% and 9.13% respectively. Whereas lowest unemployment rates of 0.48% and 0.77% are found in less developed states such as Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Unemployment is highest for the age categories of 10 to 24 corroborating the view that youth unemployment is on the rise in India.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment rate is seen to increase, with an increase in educational attainment and is particularly high after the secondary level of education. Unemployment rate among educated females, in both urban and rural areas, is the highest.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Estimation of underemployment levels reveals that underemployment is widespread among females in general and rural females in particular.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Underemployment levels calculated across the employment status shows that self&ndash;employed and casual labour categories have the highest levels of underemployment. Among the regular wage/ salaried labour, underemployment is negligible.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Employment and unemployment in Emerging Sectors</strong> </span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In terms of employment in the emerging sector, a large number of people are employed in the retail sector, which includes both the organized and unorganized labour market (7.1%).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Second largest labour market comprises the construction industry (5.9%). Almost 7.7 percent of the total male work force is employed in this industry. Nearly 8.7 percent of the urban and 5 percent of the rural workers are involved in this sector.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the transport sector, 7.5 percent of the workers are males and only 0.1 percent are females, a pattern common to both the urban and rural segments in India</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Employment in the IT sector is non-existent in rural areas and it appears that these sectors are pro-urban since they need educated and highly skilled workers. The pattern of employment in the media and pharmaceutical sectors is predominantly urban, similar to that in the IT and software sectors.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The hospitality and health care sectors seem to provide more opportunities to women.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In sectors like Mining, Textiles, Metals, Gems and Jewellery, Automobile, Transport and IT/BPO, the rate of decline in employment was at 1.01% for the period October &ndash; December 2008. It was lower at 0.74% in November 2008. However, the rate increased to 1.17% for January 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">All sectors barring IT/BPO (business process outsourcing), show a negative rate of growth of employment for the period from October to December 2008. The maximum decline in employment was observed in the gems and jewellery industry. The IT/BPO sector that showed a positive employment trend in the October to December 2008 period, but the December 2008 to January 2009 reported a declining rate of -1.66%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The overall rate for the December 2008 to January 2009 period was (-)1.17%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">For the period of October to December 2008, direct non manual workers experienced a decline in employment with the gems and jewellery industry accounting for the highest at 6.17%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall, out of all the categories of direct and contract workers, manual contract workers experienced the highest unemployment while the non &ndash;manual contract workers show a gain in employment for the period of October to December 2008.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>
',
	'credit_writer' => 'Rural Expert',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 8,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'unemployment-30',
	'meta_title' => '',
	'meta_keywords' => '',
	'meta_description' => '',
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 30,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$imgtag = false
$imgURL = '#'
$titleText = 'Unemployment'
$descText = 'KEY TRENDS 

&nbsp;

&bull; In 2017-18,&nbsp;24.8&nbsp;percent&nbsp;of&nbsp;rural&nbsp;working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural&nbsp;working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed AB

&nbsp;

&bull; Both the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) and the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018,...'
$foundposition = false
$startp = (int) 0
$endp = (int) 200
preg_replace - [internal], line ??
include - APP/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp, line 34
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 880
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Warning (2): preg_replace() [<a href='https://secure.php.net/function.preg-replace'>function.preg-replace</a>]: Unknown modifier 'F' [APP/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp, line 35]
Code Context
        $titleText = preg_replace('/(' . $qryStr . ')/is', "<font style='background-color:yellow;'>" . $qryStr . "</font>", strip_tags($titleText));
        $descText = preg_replace('/(' . $qryStr . ')/is', "<font style='background-color:yellow;'>" . $qryStr . "</font>", strip_tags($descText));
        ?>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'articleList' => object(Cake\ORM\ResultSet) {

		'items' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	
	},
	'qryStr' => 'Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill 2019',
	'mostViewSectionData' => [],
	'topTwentyTags' => [
		(int) 0 => 'Agriculture',
		(int) 1 => 'Food Security',
		(int) 2 => 'Law and Justice',
		(int) 3 => 'Health',
		(int) 4 => 'Right to Food',
		(int) 5 => 'Corruption',
		(int) 6 => 'farming',
		(int) 7 => 'Environment',
		(int) 8 => 'Right to Information',
		(int) 9 => 'NREGS',
		(int) 10 => 'Human Rights',
		(int) 11 => 'Governance',
		(int) 12 => 'PDS',
		(int) 13 => 'COVID-19',
		(int) 14 => 'Land Acquisition',
		(int) 15 => 'mgnrega',
		(int) 16 => 'Farmers',
		(int) 17 => 'transparency',
		(int) 18 => 'Gender',
		(int) 19 => 'Poverty'
	],
	'bottomNewsAlertArticlesData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 65259,
			'name' => ' Moving Upstream: Luni – Fellowship',
			'seo_url' => 'moving-upstream-luni-fellowship',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 65169,
			'name' => ' 135 Million Indians Exited “Multidimensional" Poverty as per Government...',
			'seo_url' => '135-million-indians-exited-multidimensional-poverty-as-per-government-figures-is-that-the-same-as-poverty-reduction',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 65120,
			'name' => ' Explainer: Why are Tomato Prices on Fire?',
			'seo_url' => 'explainer-why-are-tomato-prices-on-fire',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 64981,
			'name' => ' NSSO Survey: Only 39.1% of all Households have Drinking...',
			'seo_url' => 'nsso-survey-only-39-1-of-all-households-have-drinking-water-within-dwelling-46-7-of-rural-households-use-firewood-for-cooking',
			'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
		]
	],
	'videosData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 393,
			'name' => ' Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...',
			'seo_url' => 'Short-Video-on-im4change-Hindi-website-Inclusive-Media-for-Change',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/I51LYnP8BOk/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 392,
			'name' => ' "Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-1- Scope-of-IDEA-and-AgriStack-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/kNqha-SwfIY/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 390,
			'name' => ' "Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-2-Farmer-Centric-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/6kIVjlgZItk/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 389,
			'name' => ' "Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
			'seo_url' => 'Session-3-Future-of-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/2BeHTu0y7xc/1.jpg'
		]
	],
	'videos_archivesData' => [
		(int) 0 => [
			'id' => (int) 388,
			'name' => ' Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for...',
			'title' => 'Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for Agrarian Studies)',
			'seo_url' => 'Public-Spending-on-Agriculture-in-India-Source-Foundation-for-Agrarian-Studies',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/s6ScX4zFRyU/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 1 => [
			'id' => (int) 387,
			'name' => ' Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws...',
			'title' => 'Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws in India' by Prof. Vikas Rawal, JNU (Source: Journal Of Agrarian Change) ',
			'seo_url' => 'Agrarian-Change-Seminar-Protests-against-the-New-Farm-Laws-in-India-by-Prof-Vikas-Rawal-JNU-Source-Journal-Of-Agrarian-Change',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/SwSmSv0CStE/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'id' => (int) 386,
			'name' => ' Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis...',
			'title' => 'Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis (Source: Azim Premji University)',
			'seo_url' => 'Webinar-Ramrao-The-Story-of-India-Farm-Crisis-Source-Azim-Premji-University',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/sSxUZnSDXgY/1.jpg'
		],
		(int) 3 => [
			'id' => (int) 385,
			'name' => ' Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship...',
			'title' => 'Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship (Source: IGIDR)',
			'seo_url' => 'water-and-agricultural-transformation-in-India',
			'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcaVuNYK_e8/1.jpg'
		]
	],
	'urlPrefix' => '',
	'rightLinl_success' => 'Success Stories',
	'rightLinl_interview' => 'Interviews',
	'rightLinl_interview_link' => 'interviews',
	'readMoreAlerts' => 'Read More',
	'moreNewAlerts' => 'More News Alerts...',
	'moreNewsClippings' => 'More...',
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'dataReportArticleMenu' => [
		(int) 8 => [
			(int) 1 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 6 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 33 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 7 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 35 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 2 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 9 => [
			(int) 36 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 30 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 29 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 28 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 3192 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 11 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 3193 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 27 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 18 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 10 => [
			(int) 20357 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 13 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 21 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 20 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 12 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 15 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 14 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 57 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 23 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 12 => [
			(int) 22 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 25 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 24 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		],
		(int) 13 => [
			(int) 20358 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 17 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 26 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 8 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 16 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			],
			(int) 19 => [
				[maximum depth reached]
			]
		]
	],
	'dataReportCat' => [
		(int) 8 => 'Farm Crisis',
		(int) 9 => 'Empowerment',
		(int) 10 => 'Hunger / HDI',
		(int) 12 => 'Environment',
		(int) 13 => 'Law & Justice'
	],
	'curPageURL' => 'https://im4change.in/search?qryStr=Andhra+Pradesh+Employment+of+Local+Candidates+in+the+Industries%2FFactories+Bill%2C+2019',
	'youtube_video_id' => 'MmaTlntk-wc',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$articleList = object(Cake\ORM\ResultSet) {

	'items' => [
		(int) 0 => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {}
	]

}
$qryStr = 'Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill 2019'
$mostViewSectionData = []
$topTwentyTags = [
	(int) 0 => 'Agriculture',
	(int) 1 => 'Food Security',
	(int) 2 => 'Law and Justice',
	(int) 3 => 'Health',
	(int) 4 => 'Right to Food',
	(int) 5 => 'Corruption',
	(int) 6 => 'farming',
	(int) 7 => 'Environment',
	(int) 8 => 'Right to Information',
	(int) 9 => 'NREGS',
	(int) 10 => 'Human Rights',
	(int) 11 => 'Governance',
	(int) 12 => 'PDS',
	(int) 13 => 'COVID-19',
	(int) 14 => 'Land Acquisition',
	(int) 15 => 'mgnrega',
	(int) 16 => 'Farmers',
	(int) 17 => 'transparency',
	(int) 18 => 'Gender',
	(int) 19 => 'Poverty'
]
$bottomNewsAlertArticlesData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 65259,
		'name' => ' Moving Upstream: Luni – Fellowship',
		'seo_url' => 'moving-upstream-luni-fellowship',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 65169,
		'name' => ' 135 Million Indians Exited “Multidimensional" Poverty as per Government...',
		'seo_url' => '135-million-indians-exited-multidimensional-poverty-as-per-government-figures-is-that-the-same-as-poverty-reduction',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 65120,
		'name' => ' Explainer: Why are Tomato Prices on Fire?',
		'seo_url' => 'explainer-why-are-tomato-prices-on-fire',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 64981,
		'name' => ' NSSO Survey: Only 39.1% of all Households have Drinking...',
		'seo_url' => 'nsso-survey-only-39-1-of-all-households-have-drinking-water-within-dwelling-46-7-of-rural-households-use-firewood-for-cooking',
		'cat_slug' => 'news-alerts-57'
	]
]
$videosData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 393,
		'name' => ' Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...',
		'seo_url' => 'Short-Video-on-im4change-Hindi-website-Inclusive-Media-for-Change',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/I51LYnP8BOk/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 392,
		'name' => ' "Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-1- Scope-of-IDEA-and-AgriStack-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/kNqha-SwfIY/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 390,
		'name' => ' "Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-2-Farmer-Centric-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/6kIVjlgZItk/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 389,
		'name' => ' "Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...',
		'seo_url' => 'Session-3-Future-of-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-in-Exploring-Digitalisation-in-Agriculture-29-April-2022',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/2BeHTu0y7xc/1.jpg'
	]
]
$videos_archivesData = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'id' => (int) 388,
		'name' => ' Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for...',
		'title' => 'Public Spending on Agriculture in India (Source: Foundation for Agrarian Studies)',
		'seo_url' => 'Public-Spending-on-Agriculture-in-India-Source-Foundation-for-Agrarian-Studies',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/s6ScX4zFRyU/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'id' => (int) 387,
		'name' => ' Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws...',
		'title' => 'Agrarian Change Seminar: 'Protests against the New Farm Laws in India' by Prof. Vikas Rawal, JNU (Source: Journal Of Agrarian Change) ',
		'seo_url' => 'Agrarian-Change-Seminar-Protests-against-the-New-Farm-Laws-in-India-by-Prof-Vikas-Rawal-JNU-Source-Journal-Of-Agrarian-Change',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/SwSmSv0CStE/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'id' => (int) 386,
		'name' => ' Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis...',
		'title' => 'Webinar: Ramrao - The Story of India's Farm Crisis (Source: Azim Premji University)',
		'seo_url' => 'Webinar-Ramrao-The-Story-of-India-Farm-Crisis-Source-Azim-Premji-University',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/sSxUZnSDXgY/1.jpg'
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'id' => (int) 385,
		'name' => ' Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship...',
		'title' => 'Water and Agricultural Transformation in India: A Symbiotic Relationship (Source: IGIDR)',
		'seo_url' => 'water-and-agricultural-transformation-in-India',
		'video_img' => 'https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcaVuNYK_e8/1.jpg'
	]
]
$urlPrefix = ''
$rightLinl_success = 'Success Stories'
$rightLinl_interview = 'Interviews'
$rightLinl_interview_link = 'interviews'
$readMoreAlerts = 'Read More'
$moreNewAlerts = 'More News Alerts...'
$moreNewsClippings = 'More...'
$lang = 'EN'
$dataReportArticleMenu = [
	(int) 8 => [
		(int) 1 => [
			'title' => 'Farm Suicides',
			'days' => (float) 728,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-27 01:16:01',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672099200,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/farmers039-suicides-14.html'
		],
		(int) 6 => [
			'title' => 'Unemployment',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:36:30',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/unemployment-30.html'
		],
		(int) 33 => [
			'title' => 'Rural distress',
			'days' => (float) 767,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-11-18 01:08:04',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1668729600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/rural-distress-70.html'
		],
		(int) 7 => [
			'title' => 'Migration',
			'days' => (float) 767,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-11-18 01:07:46',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1668729600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/migration-34.html'
		],
		(int) 35 => [
			'title' => 'Key Facts',
			'days' => (float) 1252,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-07-21 12:30:36',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1626825600,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/key-facts-72.html'
		],
		(int) 2 => [
			'title' => 'Debt Trap',
			'days' => (float) 2375,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2018-06-24 08:27:27',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1529798400,
			'seo_url' => 'farm-crisis/debt-trap-15.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		(int) 36 => [
			'title' => 'Union Budget And Other Economic Policies',
			'days' => (float) 621,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-04-13 05:00:51',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1681344000,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/union-budget-73.html'
		],
		(int) 30 => [
			'title' => 'Forest and Tribal Rights',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:57:02',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/forest-and-tribal-rights-61.html'
		],
		(int) 29 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Education',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:56:34',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-education-60.html'
		],
		(int) 28 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Food',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:55:28',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-food-59.html'
		],
		(int) 3192 => [
			'title' => 'Displacement',
			'days' => (float) 684,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-02-09 08:54:47',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1675900800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/displacement-3279.html'
		],
		(int) 11 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Work (MG-NREGA)',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:48:52',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-work-mg-nrega-39.html'
		],
		(int) 3193 => [
			'title' => 'GENDER',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:37:26',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/gender-3280.html'
		],
		(int) 27 => [
			'title' => 'Right to Information',
			'days' => (float) 804,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-10-12 01:58:29',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1665532800,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/right-to-information-58.html'
		],
		(int) 18 => [
			'title' => 'Social Audit',
			'days' => (float) 1510,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2020-11-05 09:19:21',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1604534400,
			'seo_url' => 'empowerment/social-audit-48.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		(int) 20357 => [
			'title' => 'Poverty and inequality',
			'days' => (float) 586,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-05-18 10:06:37',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1684368000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/poverty-and-inequality-20499.html'
		],
		(int) 13 => [
			'title' => 'Malnutrition',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:49:33',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/malnutrition-41.html'
		],
		(int) 21 => [
			'title' => 'Public Health',
			'days' => (float) 721,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-01-03 02:49:11',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672704000,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/public-health-51.html'
		],
		(int) 20 => [
			'title' => 'Education',
			'days' => (float) 728,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-27 01:19:42',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672099200,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/education-50.html'
		],
		(int) 12 => [
			'title' => 'Hunger Overview',
			'days' => (float) 735,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-20 05:39:23',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1671494400,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/hunger-overview-40.html'
		],
		(int) 15 => [
			'title' => 'HDI Overview',
			'days' => (float) 750,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-05 01:24:58',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1670198400,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/hdi-overview-45.html'
		],
		(int) 14 => [
			'title' => 'PDS/ Ration/ Food Security',
			'days' => (float) 797,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-10-19 03:14:42',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1666137600,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/pds-ration-food-security-42.html'
		],
		(int) 57 => [
			'title' => 'SDGs',
			'days' => (float) 847,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-08-30 02:45:06',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1661817600,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/sdgs-113.html'
		],
		(int) 23 => [
			'title' => 'Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)',
			'days' => (float) 1223,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-08-19 12:40:33',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1629331200,
			'seo_url' => 'hunger-hdi/mid-day-meal-scheme-mdms-53.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		(int) 22 => [
			'title' => 'Time Bomb Ticking',
			'days' => (float) 727,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-12-28 02:29:19',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1672185600,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/time-bomb-ticking-52.html'
		],
		(int) 25 => [
			'title' => 'Water and Sanitation',
			'days' => (float) 861,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-08-16 03:24:37',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1660608000,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/water-and-sanitation-55.html'
		],
		(int) 24 => [
			'title' => 'Impact on Agriculture',
			'days' => (float) 1567,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2020-09-09 09:23:52',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1599609600,
			'seo_url' => 'environment/impact-on-agriculture-54.html'
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		(int) 20358 => [
			'title' => 'Social Justice',
			'days' => (float) 249,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2024-04-19 12:29:31',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1713484800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/social-justice-20500.html'
		],
		(int) 17 => [
			'title' => 'Access to Justice',
			'days' => (float) 580,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2023-05-24 09:31:16',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1684886400,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/access-to-justice-47.html'
		],
		(int) 26 => [
			'title' => 'Human Rights',
			'days' => (float) 943,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-05-26 01:30:51',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1653523200,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/human-rights-56.html'
		],
		(int) 8 => [
			'title' => 'Corruption',
			'days' => (float) 987,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2022-04-12 03:14:21',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1649721600,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/corruption-35.html'
		],
		(int) 16 => [
			'title' => 'General Insecurity',
			'days' => (float) 1409,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-02-14 04:34:06',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1613260800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/general-insecurity-46.html'
		],
		(int) 19 => [
			'title' => 'Disaster &amp; Relief',
			'days' => (float) 1409,
			'currentdate' => (int) 1734924602,
			'modified' => '2021-02-14 04:23:38',
			'modifydate' => (int) 1613260800,
			'seo_url' => 'law-justice/disaster-relief-49.html'
		]
	]
]
$dataReportCat = [
	(int) 8 => 'Farm Crisis',
	(int) 9 => 'Empowerment',
	(int) 10 => 'Hunger / HDI',
	(int) 12 => 'Environment',
	(int) 13 => 'Law & Justice'
]
$curPageURL = 'https://im4change.in/search?qryStr=Andhra+Pradesh+Employment+of+Local+Candidates+in+the+Industries%2FFactories+Bill%2C+2019'
$youtube_video_id = 'MmaTlntk-wc'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
$rn = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 6,
	'title' => 'Unemployment',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>KEY TRENDS </strong></span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2017-18,&nbsp;24.8&nbsp;percent&nbsp;of&nbsp;rural&nbsp;working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural&nbsp;working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed <strong>AB</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Both the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) and the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018, double of what it was in the decade from 2000 to 2011 <strong>AA</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the 1970s and 1980s, when GDP growth was around 3-4 percent, employment growth was around 2 percent per annum. Since the 1990s, and particularly in the 2000s, GDP growth accelerated to 7 percent but employment growth slowed to 1 percent or even less. The ratio of employment growth to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is now less than 0.1 percent <strong>&part;&part;</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate was estimated to be 5.0 percent during 2015-16 at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate stood at 5.1 percent whereas in urban areas, the same was 4.9 percent (as per the UPS approach) <strong>@$</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In 2015-16, nearly 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc <strong>@$</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In 2015-16, almost 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc <strong>@$</strong>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) proposes to cover 24 lakh Indian youth with meaningful, industry relevant, Skill Based Training under which 5.32 lakh persons have already been enrolled. Of this number, 4.38 lakh have successfully completed training throughout India <strong>$*</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; In addition, the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), a placement-linked skill development scheme for rural youth who are poor, as a skilling component of the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) has also been launched. During 2015-16, against a target of skilling 1.78 lakhs candidates under the DDU-GKY, a total of 1.75 lakh have already been trained and 0.60 lakh placed till November 2015 <strong>$*</strong>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The proportion of persons of age 15 years and above with educational level secondary and above was the highest for Christians in rural areas for both males and females (36.3 percent for rural males and 31.1 percent for rural females) and for females in urban areas (62.7 percent) whereas for males in urban areas it was the highest among Sikhs (67.6 percent). Among the specific religious groups, unemployment rate in both rural and urban areas (based on usual status) was the highest for Christians (4.5 percent in rural areas and 5.9 percent in urban areas) and lowest for Sikhs in rural areas (1.3 percent) and Hindus in urban areas (3.3 percent) <strong>@$</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Regardless of which data source is used, it seems clear that employment growth is lagging behind growth in the labour force. For example, according to the Census, between 2001 and 2011, labor force growth was 2.23 percent (male and female combined). This is lower than most estimates of employment growth in this decade of closer to 1.4 percent. Creating more rapid employment opportunities is clearly a major policy challenge <strong>$$</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A rising trend is observed in real wages since 1995 more particularly from 2007 especially in the developed states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. And the acceleration of this rising trend since 2007, even in slack seasons, indicates that the labor shortage is a permanent phenomenon and era of surplus labor is over. At the all India level, there is an upward movement in wage rates since 2006 onwards <strong>$ </strong></p>

<div style="text-align:justify"><br />
&bull; Among rural males, the most demanded field of vocational training was &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (18 percent) followed by &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (17 percent), &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (16 percent), &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades&rsquo; (12 percent) in the rural areas <strong>&pound;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Among rural female, the highest demand for field of training was observed in &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (26 percent).This was followed by the &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical services related work&rsquo; (14 percent) <strong>&pound;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; India&rsquo;s real wages fell 1% between 2008 and 2011, while labour productivity grew 7.6% in the same period. In contrast, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 11% in 2008-11, while labour productivity expanded 9%. India&rsquo;s real wage growth was 1% in 1999-2007, while labour productivity rose by 5%. In 1999-2007, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 13.5%, while labour productivity growth was 9% <strong>&part;</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate is estimated to be 3.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate is 3.4 per cent whereas in urban areas, the same is 5.0 per cent under the UPS approach. At all India level, the female unemployment rate is estimated to be 6.9 per cent whereas for males, the unemployment rate is 2.9 per cent under the UPS approach<strong>++</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Employment elasticity of agricultural growth (see the note below) declined from 0.52 during 1983-1993/94 to 0.28 during 1993/94-2004/05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The growth of total employment declined from 2.03 per cent during 1983/1993-94 to 1.85 per cent during 1993-94/2004-05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The share of unorganized sector agricultural workers in the total agricultural workers was 98 per cent during 2004-05<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Nearly two-thirds of the agricultural workers (64 per cent) are self-employed, or farmers as we call them, and the remaining, a little over one-third (36 per cent), wage workers<strong>#</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; Growth rate of agricultural employment decelerated from 1.4 per cent during the period 1983/1993-94 to 0.8 per cent during the period 1993-94/2004-05<strong>*</strong></div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Note- </strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons, who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Employment elasticity indicates an increase in employment in response to economic growth. A reduction in employment elasticity suggests that the rate of increase in jobs is on the decline&nbsp;</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>AB </strong>Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2017 - June 2018), which has been produced by the National Statistical Office (released in May 2019), please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>AA </strong>State of Working India 2019, Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/431State_of_Working_India_2019_Centre_for_Sustainable_Employment_Azim_Premji_University.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&part;&part; </strong>State of Working India 2018, Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/577State_of_Working_India_2018.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>@$</strong> Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1, prepared by the Labour Bureau (Chandigarh), please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%205th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202015-16.pdf" title="Report on 5th Annual Employment Unemployment Survey 2015-16">click here</a> to access</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$*</strong> Economic Survey 2015-16, Ministry of Finance, (<a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol1.pdf">Volume-1</a> , <a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol2.pdf">Volume-2</a>)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>@$</strong> NSS 68th Round Report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12) released in February, 2016, MoSPI (please <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_568_19feb16.pdf">click here</a> to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$$</strong> Economic Survey 2014-15 (Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/448echapter-vol1.compressed.pdf">Vol1</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/476echapter-vol2.pdf">Vol2</a>&nbsp; to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>$</strong> <a href="tinymce/uploaded/2013%20Trends%20in%20rural%20wage%20rates_1.pdf">Trends in Rural Wage Rates</a>: Whether India Reached Lewis Turning Point by A Amarender Reddy (2013), International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT/CGIAR)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&pound;</strong> NSS report no. 551 (66/10/6) titled Status of Education and Vocational Training in India (66th Round), July 2009-June 2010, published in March 2013, MoSPI, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf</a></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>&part;</strong> Global Wage Report 2012-13: Wages and equitable growth, ILO,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong>++</strong> Report on Second Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12,</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf</a>, &nbsp;</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf</a>, &nbsp;</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf</a> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong># </strong>The Challenge of Employment in India: An Informal Economy Perspective, Volume-I, Main Report, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), April, 2009, <a href="http://nceus.gov.in/">http://nceus.gov.in/</a> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Arial"><strong>*</strong> NCEUS (2007), Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><strong>OVERVIEW</strong> </span></div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Despite a consistently high GDP growth rate, India is not able to generate even a fraction of new job its rural folks require. The new job creation is restricted to higher end service sector areas like finance, insurance, IT and IT Enable Services (ITES) rather than in manufacturing and infrastructure where the low-skill rural migrants hope to find work. A combination of sluggish village economy, stagnation in rural crafts and cottage industry, falling farm incomes and poor human development indicators (HDI) is a perfect recipe for more rural unemployment and more distress migration to cities.&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Even before the recession started, creation of new jobs had hit negative growth. Nine out of ten people in the trillion-dollar economy work in the unorganized sector and three fourths of all Indians live on Rs 20 a day, according to the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). Many economists argue that migration from villages to cities is a necessary condition for growth. However, India&#39;s &#39;low cost advantage&#39; in the global market ensures low earnings which fail to kick off the growth cycle of reasonable purchasing power creating more domestic demand and finally leading to more job creation.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Numbers show that instead of &lsquo;getting there&rsquo; we could be moving in the opposite direction. For instance the rate of unemployment rose by 1 percentage point in the decade between 1994 and 2005. Among rural males the proportion of self-employed has also fallen by four percentage points between early eighties and 2005. This spells doom for work participation of rural poor in the face of falling employment.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">Figures also show that the situation is unchanged or worsened for rural females since the early eighties. Over 45 percent of the farmers&rsquo; meager incomes come from rural non-farm employment (RNFE), which, in effect, is another name for casual labour. The wages are typically low because the farmer has to take whatever work he can get in the vicinity of his village. Right now only 57 percent of the farmers are self employed and above 36 percent are wage workers, of which 98 percent are engaged as casual labour.</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p>The present report &#39;<a href="/upload/files/Crushed%202022%20report%204th%20edition.pdf">Crushed 2022</a>&#39;, Safe in India Foundation&#39;s (SII) annual report on the state of worker safety in the Indian auto sector, is based on the following data:</p>

<p>&bull; First-hand data from 6+ years of SII&rsquo;s operations and on 4,000+ injured workers in the auto-sector hubs in Haryana (Gurgaon and Faridabad) and more recently in Maharashtra.</p>

<p>&bull; Data from a time-limited national survey of a few auto-sector hubs in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand.</p>

<p>&bull; Both of the above exercises covering accidents in the deeper supply chains of 20+ national auto brands.</p>

<p>&bull; Secondary data on worker injuries from the official data sources, such as the Directorate General Factory Advice Service &amp; Labour Institutes (DG FASLI)-published factory accident numbers across India.</p>

<p>The key findings of Safe in India Foundation&#39;s report [inside]Crushed 2022, 4th edition (released on 13th December 2022)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/Crushed%202022%20report%204th%20edition.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p>&bull; Thousands of workers continue to lose their hands/ fingers in the auto-sector supply chain nationally</p>

<p>&bull; It&rsquo;s a national problem and supply chains of all top 10 large auto sector brands contribute to these crush injuries. A national coordinated industry action is needed.</p>

<p>&bull; Top contributors in states covered in this report are: In Haryana (Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, and Honda); in Pune, Maharashtra (TATA and Mahindra); in Chennai, Tamil Nadu (TVS, Ashok Leyland, and TATA); in Karnataka (Toyota, TATA, and Ashok Leyland); In Rudrapur, Uttarakhand (TATA, Bajaj, and Mahindra) and in Neemrana, Rajasthan (Honda, Maruti Suzuki, and Hero).</p>

<p>&bull; Official accident numbers are a fraction of those assisted by only SII every year in Haryana (and potentially in other states); the problem is much worse in reality than officially recorded.</p>

<p>&bull; The severity of injuries in factory accidents in Pune appears to be worse than Haryana.</p>

<p>&bull; A large number of injuries on machines happen to helpers, who, legally, should not even be operating these machines.</p>

<p>&bull; Overworked&nbsp;and not fully paid for overtime.</p>

<p>&bull; Over 80 percent of injured workers from Haryana reported working on machines without safety sensors at the time of accident and power press machines on which they were injured were operating without the required inspection.</p>

<p>&bull; A typical crush injury to fingers results in the loss of two fingers per injured worker; about 60-70 percent injured workers still report loss of body parts, indicating continued dangerous working conditions.</p>

<p>&bull; ESIC (national insurance) woes: 60-70 percent of injured auto sector workers receive their ESIC e-Pehchaan (identity) card only after an accident even though employers collect contribution amounts regularly.</p>

<p>&bull; Most of the injured workers were first taken to private hospitals and only later to ESIC hospitals in both Haryana and Maharashtra-though the latter appears to be better of the two in this.</p>

<p>&bull; Haryana and Maharashtra state&rsquo;s factory inspections have been near consistently reducing for years; when reported, penalties are not enough to be a deterrent.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Top five operational recommendations:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Boards to take responsibility for worker safety in their deeper supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Create a joint industry-level task force with SIAM (with some participation from SII).</p>

<p>&bull; Map the deeper supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Improve transparency and accountability of accident reporting in the supply chain, weed out habitual offenders and reward safest factories, commercially.</p>

<p>&bull; Initiate ground-level actions, e.g., honest worker safety audits and worker training.</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Top five policy recommendations:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Include all contract workers in their own factories in the OSH Policy statement at par with permanent workers.</p>

<p>&bull; Create, publish, and implement a Supplier Code of Conduct (SCoC).</p>

<p>&bull; Create, publish, and implement a standard operating procedure (SOP) for supply chain.</p>

<p>&bull; Report annually on Indicator 8.8 of SDG-8 (the only SDG indicator about worker safety).</p>

<p>&bull; Demand minimum compliance from the supply chains (e.g., all workers should be covered by ESIC from their first workday).</p>

<p><strong>---</strong></p>

<p><strong>Operational recommendations to the central and state government:</strong></p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of Corporate Affairs for leading efforts to improve business responsibility reporting and for transparent monitoring systems.</p>

<p>&bull; Niti Ayog for leading efforts to ensure OSH is prioritized in the country, including by leveraging their tech capabilities.</p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of MSME for leading efforts to link worker safety to productivity, professionalism, and quality.</p>

<p>&bull; Ministry of Industry for coordinating with the Ministry of MSME and MOLE on regulatory and worker support mechanisms and worker-related information.</p>

<p>&bull; SEBI for improving ESG reporting and making companies more accountable for quality reporting.</p>

<p>&bull; National Skill Development Council for strengthening focus on worker skills and OSH skills.</p>

<p><strong>Ministry of Labour and Employment</strong> and <strong>Department of Labour</strong> in states: Drive actions to achieve OSH policy objectives and lead on monitoring efforts</p>

<p>&bull; Drive calibrated actions to achieve the objectives of the OSH Policy, 2009.</p>

<p>&bull; Leverage ESIC data to inform factory inspections; conduct safety surveys.</p>

<p>&bull; Create a reliable accident/injury reporting and governance system, and use it for constant continuing improvements.</p>

<p>&bull; Set up a confidential helpline for workers to report unsafe conditions/factory accidents.</p>

<p>&bull; Introduce a practical policy and mechanism for safety training of contract and migrant workers.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the study titled [inside]Accessing Minimum Wages: Evidence from Delhi (released on July 4, 2022)[/inside], which has been prepared by Working Peoples&#39; Coalition, are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/WPC_Access%20to%20Minimum%20Wage%20in%20Delhi%20Report.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; This study was conceptualized by the Delhi Chapter of the Working Peoples&rsquo; Coalition (WPC) and was guided by the vast experiences of Delhi Shramik Sanghatan, Janpahal, Gram Vaani, Yuva and Basti Suraksha Manch. This study attempts to highlight the violations of basic workers&rsquo; rights despite the Delhi government&rsquo;s initial attempts to deal with it positively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A survey of 1,076 workers show that more than 50 percent of men workers are working across all industries, whereas women workers are concentrated mainly in domestic work and the construction sector.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the months of January and February 2022, the study was conducted in Delhi region covering four sub-sectors (i.e., industrial, domestic work, construction and security work) of unorganized economy that employs women, unskilled, contractual and migrant workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Two-third of the youths surveyed are deriving their wages from the unorganized sector.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Over 60 percent of workers have below the primary level of education which would constrain their labour market mobility and deprive them of accessing skill development opportunities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Around 64 percent of workers had migrated from their hometowns in search of livelihood in Delhi. About 8 percent of the migrant workers are part of circular migration due to the seasonality of industries.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Approximately, 40 percent of workers are in domestic work, 16 percent in industry, 33 percent in construction and 11 percent as security workers in Delhi.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Most workers stay in low-wage-low-productive sectors with bare minimum earnings.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 5 percent of workers are receiving stipulated minimum wages and 95 percent are compelled to accept the wages offered by their employers (and the wage levels are not at par with the wage levels as recommended by the regulatory bodies).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; It is found that 95 percent of workers despite having the required skill sets are not being paid a statutory minimum wage as stipulated by the Government of Delhi.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; More than two-third of workers are not aware of the laws that strengthen their right to receive decent wages and 98 percent of workers do not receive pay slips.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The study finds that 98 percent of female workers and 95 percent of male workers receive wages below the stipulated minimum wages.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Over 90 percent of workers despite working tirelessly are deprived of their social security benefits.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; More than two-third of workers (over 75 percent) work in indecent working environments without sufficient facilities and insecure work site premises, which could lead to unhealthy industrial relations and welfare losses for workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The &lsquo;Taking the Temperature&rsquo; research is a first-of-its-kind, landmark longitudinal report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on India&#39;s creative economy.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/final_ttt3_report_web.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 3: A roadmap for recovery: governance, infrastructure, and self-reliance[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. Direct input to this final report has been provided by the Smart Cube consultancy.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the third and final &#39;Taking the Temperature&#39; report of a three-phased study. The report provides a consolidated mapping, through three consecutive surveys, of how India&#39;s culture sector has been responding to the pandemic and related lockdowns from March 2020 to November 2021.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>The report provides robust insight on the:</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">size of the creative economy to India&#39;s GDP and the scale of the current recession in the creative industries precipitated by the pandemic</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">depth and scale of impact of the pandemic and the crisis in creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">comparisons, developments and changes over a sustained period from March 2020 to November 2021</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">changes being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">recommendations needed for emergency and long-term development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">It provides a comparison of the situation in India since the outbreak of Covid-19, the consequent national lockdown (March-June, 2020), the period following relaxation of the lockdown (July-October, 2020) and reports on the second devastating wave of the pandemic (April-June, 2021).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/ttt2_report_un_year_of_creative_economy_aug_2021_0.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 2: The deepening impact of COVID-19 on India&rsquo;s creative economy[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. The report provides valuable insight on:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">the depth and scale of impact of the pandemic on creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists, managers and stakeholders</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">comparisons, developments and changes over a sustained period from March 2020 to October 2020</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">systemic actions being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19, and</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">the recommendations for future development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the second edition of the report. It provides a comparison of the situation in India since the outbreak of COVID-19, the consequent national lockdown (March-June) and the period following relaxation of the lockdown (July-October).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/ttt_report_1_0.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>&nbsp;to access the report [inside]Taking the Temperature Report Edition 1: Impact of Covid-19 on India&rsquo;s Creative Economy[/inside], which has been developed in partnership by the British Council, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Art X Company. The report provides valuable insights on:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">on the impact of the pandemic on creative sectors, arts companies and individual artists, managers and stakeholders.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">by tracing and reporting developments, and change over a sustained period, initially to October 2020.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">on systemic actions being taken to strengthen the creative economy, during and post Covid-19.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">by making recommendations for the future development of the creative economy.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">This is the first edition of the report; it provides a snapshot of the situation in India since the outbreak of Covid-19 and the consequent lockdown, from late March 2020 up until early June 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The present report &#39;<a href="/upload/files/CRUSHED%202021%20Upload%2025%20Jan%202022.pdf" target="_blank">Crushed 2021</a>&#39;, Safe in India Foundation&#39;s (SII) annual report on the state of worker safety in the Indian auto sector, further develops the case for systemic action with:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Data across 5 years and on 2500+ injured workers from the auto sector.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Assessment of other auto-sector hubs in Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand, and case studies from Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Multivariate data analysis to improve understanding of accidents and injuries.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Establishing urgency of focus on the &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo; power press and legal violations that result in over 50 percent of these accidents.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Top 5 recommendations to the auto-sector original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), Society of Indian Auto Manufacturers (SIAM), Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), and the government.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of Safe in India Foundation&#39;s report [inside]Crushed 2021, 3rd edition (released on 26th January, 2022)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="/upload/files/CRUSHED%202021%20Upload%2025%20Jan%202022%281%29.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a> to access):</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">80 percent of the injured workers met with accidents in the supply chains of some of the largest auto-sector brands;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">70 percent lost their hands/ fingers;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">1.97 fingers on average lost to a crush injury;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">92 percent migrant workers; 81 percent educated only up to grade 10;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">71 percent earned less than Rs. 10,000 a month (many with no overtime pay despite ~12-hour shifts); 70 percent on contract; 62 percent under 30;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The lower the salary and education of a worker, the worse the injury;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">About 70 percent received their ESIC Identity Card after the accident and not on the date of joining. These workers/ families could not use ESIC through their working lives, until they suffered grave injuries;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, Honda suppliers remain the largest contributors to accidents in Gurugram (93 percent) and Faridabad (75 percent). Bajaj, Eicher, JCB, Tata Motors, TVS, Yamaha suppliers also significant contributors in Gurugram, Faridabad, Rudrapur, Neemrana;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Not just a small MSME problem: accidents in 22 percent of ACMA members (some of the largest factories/suppliers);</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The auto sector has the muscle/influence to prevent accidents and push up Indian labour productivity from its current rank of 115th in the world;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Haryana factory inspections have largely been reduced for years. Penalties for infractions to the Factories Act are rarely imposed and are in any case insignificant to change factory owners&rsquo; behaviours;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH &amp; WC) labour code has at least 8 major dilutions of factory safety;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Over 50 percent injuries reported to SII occur on power press machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Two times probability of losing fingers on a power press machine; a worker loses half a finger more to a power press than other machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the workers injured on power presses inadequately trained and have low education levels;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Young and old workers lose fingers equally on power presses; experience does not seem to make up for unsafe machines;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the crush injuries were on power presses that should have had safety sensors but did not; other required PPE also often missing;</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Most factories violate many extant regulations; potential criminal offenses.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<ul>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five operational recommendations to OEMs in the CRUSHED series of reports:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">OEM boards to take responsibility for worker safety in their deeper supply chain.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create a joint industry-level task force with SIAM (with some participation from SII).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Map their deeper supply chain.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Improve transparency and accountability of accident reporting in the supply chain, weed out habitual offenders and reward safest factories, commercially.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Initiate ground-level actions, e.g., honest worker safety audits and worker training.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five policy recommendations to OEMs as reported in SafetyNiti 2021 of SII:</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Include all contract workers in own factories in their OSH Policy framework.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create, publish, and implement a Supplier Code of Conduct.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create, publish, and implement a Standard Operating Procedure for supply chain factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Report annually on SDG8.8 (the only SDG about worker safety).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Demand minimum compliance from their supply chains. (e.g. all workers should be covered by ESIC from their first work day).</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Five operational recommendations to the central and state government (labour code/rules recommendations not covered in this report)</p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Drive calibrated actions to achieve the objectives of the OSH Policy, 2009.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Use accident/ injury data from ESIC to determine selection of factories for inspection and conduct safety surveys.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Create a reliable accident/injury reporting and governance system, and use it for ongoing improvements.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Set up a confidential helpline for workers to report unsafe working conditions and accidents in factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Develop a practical policy and mechanism for safety training of contract and migrant workers.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>KEY OBSERVATIONS (in detail):</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Thousands of workers continue to lose their hands/ fingers (&ldquo;crush injuries&rdquo;) every year in the Indian auto sector.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">80 percent of all SII-assisted injured workers are from auto-component factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of these injured workers are the most marginalised and vulnerable.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A typical crush injury to fingers results in the loss of almost two (1.97) fingers per injured worker.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">70 percent of injured workers get their ESIC &ldquo;e-Pehchaan&rdquo; Card only after the accident (not on the day of joining the job, as they should).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The lower the salary and education &ndash; the worse the injury!</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">About half of the injured workers reported shift timings more than 12 hours, and were often not paid for overtime at the legal rates, in violation of the Factories Act.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The Indian auto sector is critical to not only the Indian economy and manufacturing, now and in the future, but also to the lives, working conditions, and productivity of millions of Indian workers.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Crush injuries in the auto sector continue in the thousands - nationally.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Although accidents in Gurugram appear to have recently reduced (potentially due to disruption in production during Covid), the situation in Faridabad appears to be worse than Gurugram.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) and Neemrana (Rajasthan), two relatively smaller auto-sector hubs, too, have high incidence of injuries in their auto-component factories.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Top 3 responsible OEMs: In Gurugram and Faridabad, suppliers to Maruti-Suzuki, Hero, and Honda continue to be the largest contributors to these accidents.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Other than the above top 3 responsible OEMs, JCB, Tata Motors, Yamaha, Eicher, TVS, and Bajaj are also significant contributors to accidents in Gurugram, Faridabad, Rudrapur, and Neemrana.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">ACMA members (some of the largest factories/ suppliers) continue to have 22 percent of all accidents in Gurugram; it is not just a small factory problem.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Worker accidents have been under-reported for decades: Haryana state-reported accident numbers are not even 5 percent of reality.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Haryana state&rsquo;s factory inspections have been reducing for years (though marginal improvement seen in 2018/19).</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Anecdotal feedback shared by workers also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of factory audits.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The penalties for Factories Act infractions are rarely imposed and are in any case insignificant to change factory owners&rsquo; behaviours.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The new OSH &amp; WC labour code may make factory safety worse.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of the crush injuries reported to SII happen on power press machines; press machines in Faridabad are worse than those in Gurugram.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Power presses are essential in the supply chain of all auto sector brands.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">The probability of losing fingers on a power press machine is twice as much as other machines, and a worker loses half a finger more on a power press machine accident than on other machines.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Both young and old workers lose fingers equally on these power presses; experience does not seem to make up for unsafe machines.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">Despite power presses being &ldquo;dangerous&rdquo;, most workers injured on power presses were inadequately trained and had low education levels.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A majority of these crush injuries happened on power presses that should have had safety sensors but did not; in most cases, other required PPE was also missing.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">A multitude of violations of extant rules and regulations for power presses; many would be potential criminal offences.</li>
	<li style="text-align:justify">These accidents can be significantly reduced with small investments, leading also to savings/ productivity gains.</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="/upload/files/Mercer%20primer-new-labour-codes.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a> to access the [inside]Primer on Labour Codes in India (released in January, 2022)[/inside], which has been prepared by Mercer Consulting.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Domestic%20Work%20is%20Work%20CHRI%202021.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> titled [inside]Domestic Work is Work by Commonwealth Health Rights Initiative-CHRI (released on 10th December,2021)[/inside] explores the situation of domestic workers and the status of ratification of C189 in specific Commonwealth countries. It includes five Commonwealth nations that have yet to ratify C189: United Kingdom, Uganda, India, Papua New Guinea, and Dominica. These countries were selected because their governments have either committed to ratifying C189, are considering ratification, or face mounting local civil society pressure to ratify - all suggesting some momentum for change. Each case study focuses on the challenges facing domestic workers and explores actions that both governments and civil society can take to support domestic workers and promote C189.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Domestic%20Work%20is%20Work%20CHRI%202021.pdf" target="_blank">report by CHRI</a> also includes two additional case studies - countries that have shown their commitment to protecting the rights of domestic workers and advancing decent work for all by ratifying C189: Jamaica and South Africa. These stories of good practice provide insights into lessons learnt for effective civil society advocacy and government collaboration. The ratification stories of Jamaica and South Africa also exemplify the power of strategic grassroots advocacy for bringing about essential change.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Key Recommendations</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Civil society and advocates can take the following key actions to complement state actions and to promote the ratification of C189 and the rights of domestic workers in their countries:<br />
&nbsp;<br />
* Collaborate with domestic workers and organisations led by domestic workers to inform responsive and effective advocacy and promote the ability of domestic workers to organise collectively and join trade unions<br />
* Engage key decision makers who can push for the ratification and implementation of C189<br />
* Utilise key dates as opportunities to strategically advocate for the ratification and implementation of C189<br />
* Promote the ratification of C189 and its provisions through public awareness raising, education and campaigns<br />
* Increase capacity for research and data collection on the situation of domestic workers<br />
* Promote the right to information to enhance advocacy efforts<br />
* Join international, &nbsp;and regional and national civil society coalitions and networks<br />
* Support aid services for domestic workers<br />
* Raise concerns with international and regional human rights mechanisms and experts</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong><br />
The key findings of the [inside]Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2021: Pension reform in challenging times (released in October, 2021)&nbsp;[/inside] are as follows (please click <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Mercer.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.uk.mercer.com/our-thinking/global-pension-index-2021.html">here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2021 benchmarks 43 retirement income systems around the world, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. In 2021, new entrant Iceland is named as having the world&rsquo;s best pension system overall. However, as the world continues to grapple with the economic implications of the pandemic and its ongoing health crisis, the study also reveals factors causing the gender pension gap around the world. It&rsquo;s critical that policymakers and governments reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their systems to deliver better long-term outcomes for future retirees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India&rsquo;s retirement income system comprises an earnings-related employee pension scheme, a defined contribution employee provident fund, and supplementary employer managed pension schemes that are largely defined contribution in nature.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Government schemes have been launched as part of universal social security program aimed at benefiting the unorganised sector. The EPFO&rsquo;s schemes continue to be the primary one for the organized sector. The National Pension System is gradually gaining popularity.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India (along with Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Philippines, Argentina and Thailand) has a pension system that has some desirable features, but also has major weaknesses and/or omissions that need to be addressed. Without these improvements, its efficacy and sustainability are in doubt.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2021, India ranks 40th in overall index out of 43 pension systems.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Indian index value decreased from 45.7 in 2020 to 43.3 in 2021 primarily due to a fall in the net replacement rates. According to the <a href="https://data.oecd.org/pension/net-pension-replacement-rates.htm">OECD</a>, the &#39;net replacement rate&#39; is defined as the individual net pension entitlement divided by net pre-retirement earnings, taking into account personal income taxes and social security contributions paid by workers and pensioners. The sub-index value for &#39;adequency&#39; fell from 38.8 in 2020 to 33.5 in 2021. The sub-index value for &#39;sustainability&#39; decreased from 43.1 in 2020 to 41.8 in 2021. The sub-index value for &#39;integrity&#39; increased from 60.3 in 2020 to 61.0 in 2021. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the case of India, the sub-indices values for &#39;adequacy&#39;, &#39;sustainablity&#39; and &#39;integrity&#39; are 33.5, 41.8 and 61.0 during 2021, respectively. The &#39;adequacy&#39; sub-index represents the benefits that are being provided together with some important system design features. The &#39;adequacy&#39; sub-index covers Benefits, System design, Savings, Government support, Home ownership and Growth assets. The &#39;sustainability&#39; sub-index has a focus on the future and measures various indicators, which will influence the likelihood that the current system is able to provide benefits in the future. The &#39;sustainability&#39; sub-index covers Pension coverage, Total assets, Demography, Public expenditure, Government debt and Economic growth. The &#39;integrity&#39; sub-index includes many legislative requirements that influence the overall governance and operations of the system, which affect the level of confidence that citizens have in their system. The &#39;integrity&#39; sub-index covers Regulation, Governance, Protection, Communication and Operating costs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 2021, India has received the overall index value/ grade of &#39;D&#39;. For &#39;adequacy&#39;, &#39;sustainablity&#39; and &#39;integrity&#39;, it has got the grades &nbsp;&#39;E&#39;, &#39;D&#39; and &#39;C+&#39;, respectively. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Pension system (and overall index value): Argentina (41.5), Australia (75.0), Austria (53.0), Belgium (64.5), Brazil (54.7), Canada (69.8), Chile (67.0), China (55.1), Colombia (58.4), Denmark (82.0), Finland (73.3), France (60.5), Germany (67.9), &nbsp;Hong Kong SAR (61.8), Iceland (84.2), India (43.3), Indonesia (50.4), Ireland (68.3), Israel (77.1), Italy (53.4), Japan (49.8), Korea (48.3), Malaysia (59.6), Mexico (49.0), Netherlands (83.5), New Zealand (67.4), Norway (75.2), Peru (55.0), Philippines (42.7), Poland (55.2), Saudi Arabia (58.1), Singapore (70.7), South Africa (53.6), Spain (58.6), Sweden (72.9), Switzerland (70.0), Taiwan (51.8), Thailand (40.6), Turkey (45.8), United Arab Emirates (59.6), United Kingdom (71.6), Uruguay (60.7), United States of America (61.4).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The overall index value for the Indian system could be increased by:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">-- introducing a minimum level of support for the poorest aged individuals<br />
-- increasing coverage of pension arrangements for the unorganised working class<br />
-- introducing a minimum access age so that it is clear that benefits are preserved for retirement purposes<br />
-- improving the regulatory requirements for the private pension system</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The systems with the highest value for the adequacy sub-index are Iceland (82.7) and the Netherlands (82.1), with Thailand (35.2) and India (33.5) having the lowest values. While several indicators influence these scores, the level of the minimum pension (expressed as a percentage of the average wage) and the net replacement rate for a range of incomes are the most important.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The minimum pension ranges from less than 5 percent of the average wage in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Uruguay to 35 per cent or more in Brazil, Denmark, Iceland and New Zealand. Indonesia does not provide a minimum pension.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The rates of coverage for private pension plans ranged from nil in Argentina and about six percent in India to more than 80 percent of the working age population in Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Taiwan.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">----</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="/upload/files/OCCASIONAL-PAPER-SERIES-10-final.pdf">study</a> titled [inside]Is Platform Work Decent Work? A Case of Food Delivery Workers in Karnataka (released on 8th September, 2021)[/inside], which was published by the National Law School of India University (Bangalore), is a contribution to the understanding of jobs in the platform economy or gig economy. It attempts to examine the earnings of platform workers and explores their experiences on the job in Bengaluru. The <a href="/upload/files/OCCASIONAL-PAPER-SERIES-10-final.pdf">study</a> documented below the minimum wage earnings despite long work hours well beyond 8 hours on average per day for most platform workers engaged in various food delivery platforms in Karnataka.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Labour and employment related statistics and data are collected, compiled and disseminated by several agencies in India. The Ministry of Labour and Employment through the office of Labour Bureau is an important agency involved in this task. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation is another major source, which collects and publishes data on this subject through its various divisions. Besides these two, the State Governments also collect labour statistics, mostly through the Department of Labour &amp; Directorate of Economics &amp; Statistics.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">It is worth noting that the household based employment surveys (like PLFS by MoSPI) being conducted in the country are providing employment scenario for the supply side of labour market. A consolidated picture of employment from demand side at regular intervals is also required for policy planning. For the latter purpose, we need establishment based census and sample surveys. The All India Quarterly establishment based Employment survey (AQEES) has been started to fulfill the above mentioned gap. The AQEES will provide estimates of employment, vacancies, training and other related parameters for major nine sectors of the economy. This report is a component of AQEES covering establishments with at least 10 workers. The other component, AFES, will capture information about establishments with less than 10 workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Labour Bureau has been entrusted with the task of conducting the All India Quarterly Establishment based Employment Survey (AQEES). The AQEES has two components namely Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) in respect of establishments employing 10 or more workers (mostly constituting &lsquo;organised&rsquo; segment) and Area Frame Establishment Survey (AFES) to build up a frame in respect of establishments (mostly the &lsquo;unorganised&rsquo; segment) employing 9 or less workers. After, a period of one year or initial round of AFES, the results from the 4th QES round will be merged with the findings of AFES so as to get a consolidated picture of employment scenario in respect of establishments employing 9 or less workers as also establishments with 10 or more workers. AQEES will cover all non-farm activities except division 01, 02, &amp; 03 of NIC-2008.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">In order to generate high quality accessible data on labour market for effective implementation of policies and welfare of labour, the Government of India has decided to conduct Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) to assess employment situation in respect of selected nine sectors of Non-farm economy of India over successive quarters. The selected nine sectors are Manufacturing, Construction, Trade, Transport, Education, Health, Accommodation &amp; Restaurants, Information Technology (IT)/ Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) and Financial Services. The present Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) is the 1st in the series with large sample covering 9 major sectors.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The scope of the present QES is limited only to establishments having 10 or more persons (Organized Segment) as identified by the Sixth Economic Census (2013-14). The scope &amp; coverage of AQEES and, hence, of QES is further limited to employment in non-farm economy covering nine sectors viz. Manufacturing, Construction, Trade, Transport, Education, Health, Accommodation &amp; Restaurants, IT/BPO and Financial Service Activities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/QES%201st%20Round.pdf">report</a> of this survey contains detailed information on employment situation as on 1st April, 2021 in respect of 1st Round at national level in nine selected sectors. It provides information on important characteristics of employment such as gender-wise employment, regular or contract and casual basis and part-time or full-time workers, number of vacancies, skill development programme conducted and on the job training provided by the establishment.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The list of all these establishments, as appearing in the Directory of Establishments, in the above mentioned nine major sectors in Sixth Economic Census (EC), was used as the sampling frame for the present QES survey. The aforesaid nine sectors account for around 85 percent of the total employment in units with 10 or more workers in the 6th EC.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Report on the First Round of Quarterly Employment Survey under the AQEES (released in September, 2021)[/inside], which has been produced by the Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment, are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/QES%201st%20Round.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The estimated total employment in the nine selected sectors from the first round of QES works out as 3 crores and 8 lakhs approximately against a total of 2 crores and 37 lakhs in these sectors taken collectively, as reported in the Sixth Economic Census (2013-14), implying a growth of 29 percent. Of the total employment estimated in the selected nine sectors, Manufacturing accounts for nearly 41 percent, followed by Education with 22 percent, and Health 8 percent. Trade and IT/ BPO engaged 7 percent of the total estimated number of workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The most impressive growth of 152 percent has been recorded in the IT/ BPO sector, while growth rates in Health 77 percent, Financial Services 48 percent, Education 39 percent, Manufacturing 22 percent, Transport 68 percent and Construction 42 percent were also quite significant. However, employment in Trade came down by 25 percent and in Accommodation &amp; Restaurant the decline was by 13 percent. Nearly 90 percent of the establishments have been estimated to work with less than 100 workers, though 34.8 percent of the IT/ BPO establishments worked with at least 100 workers, including about 13.8 percent engaging 500 workers or more. In the Health sector, 18 percent of the establishments had 100 or more workers. It may be mentioned that 95 percent of the establishments were reported to working with less than 100 workers in the Sixth Economic Census. And in the IT/ BPO sector the figures during 2013-14 for the size classes 100 or more and 500 or more stood at 19 and 6 respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The over-all percentage of female workers stood at 29, slightly lower than 31 reported during 6th EC.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Regular workers constitute 88 percent of the estimated workforce in the nine selected sectors, with only 2 percent being casual workers. However, 18 percent of workers in the Construction sector are contractual employees and 13 percent are casual workers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 97 percent of the establishments were located outside households in fixed structures, though 4 percent of units in IT/ BPO sector were found to operate from within households.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 9 percent of the establishments (with at least 10 workers) were not registered with any authority or under any act. While 26 percent of all the establishments were registered under the Companies Act, this percentage was as high as 71 in IT / BPO, 58 in Construction, 46 in Manufacturing, 42 in Transport, 35 in Trade and 28 in Financial services. One-fourth of the establishments were operating as registered societies, 41 percent were registered under Excise and 30 percent under Shops and Establishments Act.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Looking at the educational qualifications of employees, it came out that 31 percent of those working in seven of the nine sectors (excluding Education and Health) were matriculates/ secondary or less educated, while another 31 percent were graduates or had higher qualifications. In fact, the latter percentage is as high as 70 in the IT/BPO sector and 59 in Financial Services. In the Health sector, as few as 22 percent of the non-Clinical workers were matriculates/ secondary or less educated, the figure being 15 percent in the non-Teaching staff in the Education sector. More than one-third of the employees in these two sectors were at least graduates.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; It is somewhat encouraging to note that 18 percent of the establishments provide formal skill development programmes, mostly for their own employees, though. It transpired that an estimated 3.6 percent of the establishments were having vacancies in positions and the estimated number of vacancies was a little over one lakh 87 thousand. And about 39 percent of such vacancies were not due to retirement or resignation of employees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Coming to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on employment in the organized non-farm segment of the Indian economy, employment decreased due to the pandemic in 27 percent of the establishments. On the bright side of the employment scenario, it may be noted that 81 percent of the workers received full wages during the lock-down period (March 25-June 30, 2020), 16 percent received reduced wages and only 3 percent were denied of any wages. In the Health and Financial Services sector, however, more than 90 percent workers received full wages. However, in the Construction sector, 27 percent had to accept reduced wages and 7 percent were left with none.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">While using the QES estimates the following points have to be kept in mind:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>QES does not capture employment data from units which emerged after the 6thEconomic Census in 2013-14.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>The survey work for the first quarter of QES corresponds to the period of second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and in view of the surge in covid-19 cases across the country several lockdown restrictions were imposed by respective State/ UT authorities. Therefore, data collection was mainly carried out telephonically and through visits by investigators wherever possible.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>The survey is based on either records or responses of the establishment. However, verification of records has not been resorted to for collection of data.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>* </strong>If an individual who is working in more than one establishment on a given reference date the worker is counted separately for each establishment giving rise to possible duplication.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
The objectives of Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) are:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* to estimate the key employment and unemployment indicators (viz. Worker Population Ratio, Labour Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate) in the short time interval of three months for the urban areas only in the Current Weekly Status (CWS).&nbsp;</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* to estimate employment and unemployment indicators in both usual status (ps+ss) and CWS in both rural and urban areas annually.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">first Annual Report (July 2017-June 2018)</a> on the basis of Periodic Labour Force Survey covering both rural and urban areas giving estimates of all important parameters of employment and unemployment in both usual status (ps+ss) and current weekly status (CWS) was released on May 2019 and the <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/annual-report-on-periodic-labour-force-survey-july-2018-june-2019.pdf">second Annual Report (July 2018-June 2019)</a> was released on June 2020. This is the third Annual Report being brought out by National Statistical Office (NSO) on the basis of Periodic Labour Force Survey conducted during July 2019-June 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Out of the total number of 12,800 First Stage Units-FSUs (7,024 villages and 5,776 Urban Frame Survey-UFS blocks) allotted for the survey at the all-India level during July 2019-June 2020, a total of 12,569 FSUs (6,913 villages in rural areas and 5,656 urban blocks) could be surveyed for canvassing the PLFS schedule (Schedule 10.4). The number of households surveyed was 1,00,480 (55,291 in rural areas and 45,189 in urban areas) and number of persons surveyed was 4,18,297 (2,40,231 in rural areas and 1,78,066 in urban areas).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The survey covered the whole of the Indian Union except the villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which remained extremely difficult to access throughout the year.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The fieldwork of PLFS was suspended from 18th March, 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic. The fieldwork of the pending FSUs for January-March 2020 and the field work of FSUs allotted for canvassing during April&ndash;June, 2020 were resumed on 1st June 2020. Although schedules were canvassed later, the information was asked with respect to the actual reference period which would have been adopted if there were no pandemic. Thus, there was no break in the flow of information collected for any quarter except that informants were approached at a later date due to the unavoidable situation. On resumption of fieldwork in June 2020, the field officials were advised that the canvassing of revisit schedules was to be undertaken telephonically, as per actual reference periods of samples, in the original paper revisit schedules. The telephonic mode was adopted for revisit Schedules in order to minimise the physical interaction with informants so as to contain spread of COVID virus and to cope up with pandemic related restrictions.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report of the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2019-20 (released on 23rd July, 2021)[/inside] prepared by the National Statistical Office (NSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), are as follows (please click <a href="/upload/files/Annual_Report_PLFS_2019_20.pdf">here</a> and <a href="/upload/files/Press_note_AR_PLFS_2019_20.pdf">here</a> to access):&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Households and Population</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 53.2 percent of rural households (i.e. households with major source of income) were in self-employment, 12.9 percent of them were in regular wage/ salary earning jobs and 24.8 percent were in casual labour jobs. On the contrary, nearly 30.7 percent of urban households (i.e. households with major source of income) were in self-employment, 43.1 percent of them were in regular wage/ salary earning jobs and 11.5 percent were in casual labour jobs.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Labour Force in usual status (ps+ss)</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) in India in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 40.1 percent. In rural areas, the male LFPR was 56.3 percent and the female LFPR was 24.7 percent. In urban areas, the male LFPR was 57.8 percent and the female LFPR was 18.5 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The LFPR for persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 41.3 percent in rural areas, 40.0 percent in urban areas and 40.9 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The LFPR for persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 55.5 percent in rural areas, 49.3 percent in urban areas and 53.5 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Workforce</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) in India in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 38.2 percent. In rural areas, the male WPR was 53.8 percent and the female WPR was 24.0 percent. In urban areas, the male WPR was 54.1 percent and the female WPR was 16.8 percent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR for persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 35.9 percent in rural areas, 32.1 percent in urban areas and 34.7 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR for persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 53.3 percent in rural areas, 45.8 percent in urban areas and 50.9 percent for the country as a whole.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of self-employed among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 58.4 percent for rural males, 63.0 percent for rural females, 38.7 percent for urban males and 34.6 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of regular wage/ salaried employees among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 13.8 percent for rural males, 9.5 percent for rural females, 47.2 percent for urban males and 54.2 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share (%) of casual labour among workers in usual status (ps+ss) was 27.8 percent for rural males, 27.5 percent for rural females, 14.1 percent for urban males and 11.1 percent for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural male workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 55.4 percent, in construction sector was 15.0 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 9.2 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural female workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 75.7 percent, in construction sector was 5.6 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 3.7 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of rural workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in agricultural sector was 61.5 percent, in construction sector was 12.2 percent, in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 7.6 percent and in manufacturing sector was 7.3 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of urban male workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 28.9 percent, in manufacturing sector was 20.3 percent, in construction sector was 12.0 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 12.1 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The share of urban female workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 22.3 percent, in manufacturing sector was 22.4 percent, in construction sector was 4.9 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 3.6 percent.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&bull; The share of urban workers [in usual status (ps+ss)] in trade, hotel and restaurant sector was 27.4 percent, in manufacturing sector was 20.8 percent, in construction sector was 10.3 percent and in transport, storage and communications sector was 10.2 percent.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Unemployment Rate in usual status (ps+ss)</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate in India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 4.8 percent. The unemployment rate in rural India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 4.5 percent for males and 2.6 percent for females. The unemployment rate in urban India (for all ages) in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 6.4 percent for males and 8.9 percent for females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate for educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 10.1 percent. The unemployment rate for educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 9.9 percent in rural areas and 10.3 percent in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) was 15.0 percent. The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) in rural areas was 13.8 percent for males and 10.3 percent for females. The unemployment rate for youth persons of age 15-29 years in terms of usual status (ps+ss) in urban areas was 18.2 percent for males and 24.9 percent for females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Earnings from employment, hours worked and hours available for additional work</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The range of earnings for regular wage/ salaried employees [in Current Weekly Status-CWS] during preceding calendar month in the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 13,900-Rs. 14,300 for rural males, Rs. 8,500-Rs. 12,100 for rural females, Rs. 19,200-Rs. 21,600 for urban males and Rs. 15,300-Rs. 17,300 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average wage earning per day by casual labour engaged in work other than public works during the reference week of the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 297-Rs. 315 for rural males, Rs. 185-Rs. 209 for rural females, Rs. 375-Rs. 391 for urban males and Rs. 243-Rs. 265 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average gross earnings during last 30 days from self employment work by self-employed workers in CWS in the quarters July&ndash;September 2019, October-December 2019, January&ndash;March 2020 and April&ndash;June 2020 was Rs. 9,200-Rs. 10,100 for rural males, Rs. 4,600-Rs. 5,000 for rural females, Rs. 14,500-Rs. 17,800 for urban males and Rs. 6,900-Rs. 7,700 for urban females.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The average hours actually worked in a week by a worker in CWS during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was in the range 37 hours&ndash;48 hours. The average hours actually worked in a week by a worker in CWS during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was in the range 39 hours&ndash;46 hours in rural areas and 30 hours&ndash;54 hours in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The percentage of workers (range) in CWS who reported that they were available for additional work during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was 1.3 percent-3.3 percent in rural areas and 1.1 percent-2.2 percent in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of hours available for additional work (range) in a week for workers in CWS who reported that they were available for additional work during July 2019&ndash;June 2020 was 11.9 hours-14.2 hours in rural areas and 11.7 hours-18.8 hours in urban areas.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Informal Sector</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Around 72.9 percent of male workers, 56.5 percent of female workers and 69.5 percent of all workers in usual status (ps+ss) are engaged in informal non-agricultural sector in India. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Conditions of Employment</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 68.1 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 65.0 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 67.3 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector had no job contract in India.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; About 53.1 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 49.8 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 52.3 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector were not eligible for paid leave in India.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Roughly 53.6 percent of male regular wage/ salaried employees, 56.0 percent of female regular wage/ salaried employees and 54.2 percent of all regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agricultural sector were not eligible for any social security in India.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Definitions of Key Employment and Unemployment Indicators:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(a) Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR): The LFPR is defined as the percentage of persons in labour force (i.e. working or seeking or available for work) in the population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(b) Worker Population Ratio (WPR): The WPR is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(c) Unemployment Rate (UR): The UR is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(d) Activity Status- Usual Status: The activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the activities pursued by the person during the specified reference period. When the activity status is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey, it is known as the usual activity status of the person.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">(e) Activity Status- Current Weekly Status (CWS): The activity status determined on the basis of a reference period of last 7 days preceding the date of survey is known as the current weekly status (CWS) of the person.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/13th%20report%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Rural%20Development%202020-2021%2017th%20Lok%20Sabha%20MoRD.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Standing Committee Report on Rural Development: Demand for Grants (2021-22), Thirteenth Report[/inside], presented to the Lok Sabha on 9th March, 2021 and laid in the Rajya Sabha on 9th March, 2021, Seventeenth Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Ministry of Rural Development. Demands for Grants (2021-22) of the Department of Rural Development(under Ministry of Rural Development) was tabled in the Lok Sabha vide Demand No. 86 wherein Rs. 131,519.08 crore was allocated to the DoRD by the Government. The Standing Committee on Rural Development examined the above Demand for Grants and&nbsp; have&nbsp; reviewed the&nbsp; performance&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; schemes vis-a-vis fund allocation/ utilization during 2020-21. The observations/ recommendations of the Committee are provided in the report. The schemes covered by the report are: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA); Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana -Gramin (PMAY-G); Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY); Deendayal Antyodaya&nbsp; Yojana-National Rural Livelihood Mission&nbsp; DAY-NRLM; National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP); Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Rurban Mission (SPMRM); and Saansad Aadarsh Gram Yojana (SAGY).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Standing%20Committee%20Report%20on%20Labour%20Social%20Security%20and%20Welfare%20Measures%20for%20Inter%20State%20Migrant%20Workers%202020-21%20Sixteenth%20Report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Standing Committee Report on Labour: Social Security and Welfare Measures for Inter-State Migrant Workers (2020-21), Sixteenth Report[/inside], presented to the Lok Sabha on 11th February, 2021 and laid in the Rajya Sabha on 11th February, 2021, Seventeenth Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Ministry of Labour and Employment. The current pandemic has forced the Government to give a serious thought to the plight of the migrant workers, given the scale of the unprecedented misery millions of them found themselves in&nbsp; during the crisis. Accordingly, the&nbsp; Government of India through its various&nbsp; organs formulated certain new schemes and&nbsp; aligned certain other schemes already in existence to mitigate the hardships of the migrant workers caused due to the pandemic and the consequential lockdown. Such schemes inter-alia include Pradhan&nbsp; Mantri Garib Kalyan Rojgar Abhiyan, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojna, Atmanirbhar Bharat Scheme, Affordable Rental Housing complexes, Ayushman Bharat -Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, etc.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Deeply anguished at the pathetic plight&nbsp; of the migrant labours during the crisis and&nbsp; with a view to assessing the&nbsp; efficacy of various Schemes launched/ aligned to alleviate the conditions of&nbsp; such workers, the Committee took up the&nbsp; subject for examination and report. In&nbsp; the process, the Committee took oral&nbsp; evidence of the Ministries of Labour &amp;&nbsp; Employment, Consumer&nbsp; Affairs, Food and&nbsp; Public Distribution (Departments of Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distribution), Health and Family Welfare,&nbsp; Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Skill Development &amp; Entrepreneurship besides obtaining Background Information and written clarifications from these Ministries/ Departments. Based on these oral and&nbsp; written depositions, the Committee have&nbsp; broached upon the subject in great details as enumerated in the succeeding chapters.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report, there is no better scheme than the&nbsp; MGNREGS to provide sustainable livelihood to the unskilled&nbsp; workers, including the inter-state migrant labours. In fact, by enacting the MGNREGA legislation in 2005, the Indian Parliament had set in motion a process that provides&nbsp; for a specific and significant welfare provision, constitutive of the very idea&nbsp; of citizenship. As socio-economic rights, including the right to work, have long been part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Committee trust that the Ministry must have provided adequate opportunity for wage employment for the unskilled workers, especially the migrant&nbsp; workers in the 262 permissible works under MGNREGA. The Committee report has advised that the Ministry should unfailingly continue with their endeavour in the provision of wage employment to the unskilled/ migrant workers not only during pandemics but for all times, to meet any contingency and cater to the basic needs&nbsp; of the poorer sections of the society.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**<br />
The report (please <a href="/upload/files/IIHS.pdf">click here </a>to access) entitled [inside]Lessons for Social Protection from the COVID-19 Lockdowns Report 1 of 2: State Relief (released in February, 2021)[/inside] seeks to use COVID-19 and its attendant lockdowns in India as a crucial moment to assess the protective aspect of social protection, asking three interrelated questions:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">First, what do the immediate relief measures put into place to cope with the impact of COVID-19 and the lockdowns tell us about the current state of social protection systems? Second, how did these measures effectively target and deliver relief in complex and constrained situations such as the lockdowns? Third, going forward, what lessons does this set of immediate relief measures offer not just for medium-term recovery but for designing, building and improving social protection systems?</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The authors -- Gautam Bhan, Antara Rai Chowdhury, Neha Margosa, Kinjal Sampat and Nidhi Sohane -- chose to focus on three kinds of relief that are closely related to social protection: food, cash transfer and labour protections, analysing 181 announcements between March 20 and May 31, 2020, covering the four phased lockdowns announced by the Government of India. The archive focuses on announcements, circulars, notifications, and orders about these three kinds of relief.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Across them, the researchers employed three key analytical frames that structure the report; identification, defining entitlements, and delivery mechanisms &ndash; key components of the actually existing practice of any social protection system.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The first part focuses on identification, looking closely at eligibility criteria to be part of a relief scheme, verification processes, as well as the use of databases to direct relief. The second part looks at defining entitlements themselves, assessing what was given as relief, and consider the factors that led to this determination. The third part then looks at delivery mechanisms, focusing on the modes, processes, and actors responsible for ensuring the promised entitlement actually reached the right person within an appropriate time frame.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Relief measures implemented during the lockdown are a rich archive against which to assess each. These measures both continued, used and expanded existing systems of design and delivery but also innovated with &ldquo;temporary&rdquo; measures that created new categories of recipients, new forms of entitlements, and new mechanisms of delivery. It is crucial that we learn from both the continuities and innovations of the social protection measures implemented in this time in order to improve and expand these systems in a post-COVID world.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Kindly <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/ILO%20Home%20Based%20Worker%20report%20dated%2013%20Jan%202021%281%29.pdf">click here</a> to access the ILO report [inside]Working from home: From invisibility to decent work (released in January 2021)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://www.im4change.org/news-alerts-57/time-use-survey-fills-the-gap-left-by-usage-of-labour-force-participation-rate-in-measuring-gender-divide-in-work.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Press%20Note%20on%20Time%20Use%20Survey%20Jan%20to%20Dec%202019.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.im4change.org/docs/Report_Time_Use_in_India_2019_Jan_to_Dec_2019_NSO_MoSPI_1.pdf">here</a> to read the key findings of the report entitled [inside]Time Use in India-2019, January-December 2019 (released in September 2020)[/inside], prepared by National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Indias_Labour_Law_Reform-_Briefing_note_for_Parliamentarians_2020-1.pdf" title="/upload/files/Indias_Labour_Law_Reform-_Briefing_note_for_Parliamentarians_2020-1.pdf">click here</a> to read the [inside]Briefing Note for Parliamentarians on Labour Law Reforms[/inside] prepared by Working Peoples&#39; Charter dated 21st September, 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/SS%20code%20bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/SS%20code%20bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Code on Social Security 2020[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/OSH%20Bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/OSH%20Bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/IR%20Bill%202020.pdf" title="/upload/files/IR%20Bill%202020.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Industrial Relations Code 2020[/inside]. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/The%20Code%20on%20Wages%202019.pdf">click here</a> to read [inside]The Code on Wages 2019[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary_Standing_Committee_on_Labour_2019_20_The_Code_on_Social_Security_2019.pdf"><span style="background-color:#ffff00">click here</span></a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Labour 2019-20, The Code on Social Security 2019 (released in July 2020)[/inside], Ninth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202019-20%20Industrial%20Relations%20Code%202019.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2019-20, The Industrial Relations Code 2019 (released in April 2020)[/inside], Eighth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202019-20%20The%20Occupational%20Safety%20Health%20and%20Working%20Conditions%20Code%202019.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2019-20, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2019 (released in February 2020)[/inside], Fourth Report, Seventeenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary_Standing_Committee_on_Labour_2018_19_The_Code_on_Wages_Bill_2017.pdf"><span style="background-color:#00ff00">click here</span></a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2018-19, The Code on Wages Bill 2017 (released in December 2018)[/inside], Forty Third Report, Sixteenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/Parliamentary%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Labour%202014-15%20The%20Factories%20Amendment%20Bill%202014.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Parliamentary Standing Committee&nbsp;Report on Labour 2014-15, The Factories (Amendment) Bill 2014 (released in December 2014)[/inside], Third Report, Sixteenth Lok Sabha.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the report entitled [inside]Tackling the COVID-19 youth employment crisis in Asia and the Pacific (released on 18th August, 2020)[/inside] by Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Labour Organisation (ILO), are as follows (please <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/adb-ilo-covid-19-youth-employment-crisis-asia-pacific.pdf">click here</a> to access)</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under 3-months containment scenario (short containment), in India, the equivalent of <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table.jpg">4.1 million</a> youth jobs may be lost, followed by Pakistan with 1.5 million jobs lost.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under 6-months containment scenario (long containment), in India, the equivalent of <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%281%29.jpg">6.1 million</a> youth jobs may be lost, followed by Pakistan with 2.3 million jobs lost.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In Fiji (29.8 percent), <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%282%29.jpg">India (29.5 percent)</a> and Mongolia (28.5 percent), the youth unemployment rate may rise to near 30 percent, and may be just over that level in Sri Lanka (32.5 percent) under short containment (3-months).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under long containment (6-months), youth unemployment rate may increase to <a href="/upload/files/ADB%20ILO%20report%20table%283%29.jpg">32.5 percent in India</a>.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The highest proportion of <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table.jpg">youth job loss among the seven sectors</a> in India would be felt in <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table%281%29.jpg">agriculture (28.8 percent)</a>, followed by <a href="/upload/files/2nd%20table%282%29.jpg">construction (24.6 percent)</a>, retail trade (9.0 percent), inland transport (5.7 percent), textiles and textile products (4.2 percent), other services&nbsp; (3.1 percent) and hotels and restaurants (1.9 percent). The other sectors of the economy would be responsible for 22.7 percent of youth job losses.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Job loss among youth will continue throughout 2020 and could result in youth unemployment rates doubling. Between 10 and 15 million youth jobs (full-time equivalent) may be lost across 13 countries in Asia and the Pacific in 2020. These estimates are based on the expected fall in output and consequent decrease in labour demand for the year relative to a non-COVID-19 scenario. The estimates include large countries, such as India and Indonesia, as well as small ones such as Fiji and Nepal.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Disruptions of work-based learning have also been significant, with impacts on the provision of apprenticeships and internships. Responses to a survey on the COVID-19 impact on staff development and training with public and private enterprises and other organizations indicate that, in India, two thirds of firm-level apprenticeships and three quarters of internships were completely interrupted. Despite this, six of ten companies in India continued to provide wages or stipends to apprentices and interns.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The biggest challenges that firms cited as preventing continued apprenticeships and internships were (1) difficulties in delivering hands-on training, (2) infrastructure issues (in<br />
both countries), (3) limited digital literacy of users (in India), and (4) cost (in the Philippines).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Global survey on staff development and training in the context of COVID-19 pandemic for public and private enterprises and other organizations was launched by ten international and regional development partners, including ADB and the ILO. Responses cited in this report are based on a sample of 71 firms operating in India and 183 firms operating in the Philippines &ndash; noting that a different number of respondents answered each question. At the time of writing, survey results were not yet published.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://www.im4change.org/news-alerts-57/over-three-fourth-of-workers-lost-livelihoods-since-lockdown-finds-actionaid-india-s-national-survey-of-informal-workers.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.im4change.org/upload/files/Workers-in-the-time-of-Covid-19_ebook1.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://www.im4change.org/latest-news-updates/over-three-fourth-of-workers-lost-livelihoods-since-lockdown-findings-of-a-national-survey-of-informal-workers-by-actionaid-india.html">here</a> to access the key findings of the report entitled [inside]Workers in the Times of COVID-19 (first round) by ActionAid India (released 13th August, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>---</strong><br />
The Annual Report is based on the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by National Statistical Office (NSO) from July 2018 to June 2019. The survey was spread over 12,720&nbsp; first stage units -- FSUs (6,983 villages and 5,737 urban blocks) covering 1,01,579 households (55,812 in rural areas and 45,767 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,20,757 persons (2,39,817 in rural areas and 1,80,940 in urban areas). Estimates of the labour force indicators are presented in this report based on the usual status (ps+ss) approach and current weekly status approach adopted in the survey for classification of the population by activity statuses. The reference period for usual status (ps+ss) approach is 1 year and for current weekly status approach, it is 1 week. A rotational panel sampling design was used in urban areas. In this rotational panel scheme each selected household in urban areas is visited four times -- in the beginning with first visit schedule and thrice periodically later with revisit schedule. There was no revisit in the rural samples. The estimates of household and population, labour force, workforce and unemployment presented here are based on data collected in the Schedules of first visit in both rural and urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey, July 2018-June 2019 (released in June 2020)[/inside], National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/annual-report-on-periodic-labour-force-survey-july-2018-june-2019.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Labour Force in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Nearly 55.1 percent of the rural males, 19.7 percent of the rural females, 56.7 percent of the urban males and 16.1 percent of the urban females were in the labour force. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, LFPR in India was 38.1 percent: it was 37.8 percent in rural areas and 38.7 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, LFPR in India was 50.2 percent: it was 51.5 percent in rural areas and 47.5 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR) in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was about 35.3 percent at the all-India level. It was about 35.8 percent in rural areas and 34.1 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The WPR was 52.1 percent for rural males, 19.0 percent for rural females, 52.7 percent for urban males and 14.5 percent for urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, WPR in India was 31.5 percent: it was 31.7 percent in rural areas and 30.9 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, WPR in India was 47.3 percent: it was 48.9 percent in rural areas and 43.9 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Status in employment among workers in usual status (ps+ss) </strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Share of self-employed among workers in India was about 57.4 percent among rural males, 59.6 percent among rural females, 38.7 percent among urban males and 34.5 percent among urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among workers, about 14.2 percent among rural males, 11.0 percent among rural females, 47.2 percent among urban males and 54.7 percent among urban females were regular wage/ salaried employees.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The proportion of casual labour among workers in India was about 28.3 percent among rural males, 29.3 percent among rural females, 14.2 percent among urban males and 10.3 percent among urban females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Industry of work of the workers in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In rural areas, during 2018-19, roughly 53.2 percent of the male workers and 71.1 percent of the female workers were engaged in the agricultural sector. The proportions of male and female workers in rural areas engaged in &lsquo;construction&rsquo; sector were 15.4 percent and 6.0 percent respectively. The proportions of male and female workers in rural areas engaged in &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; sector were 7.3 percent and 9.0 percent respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In urban India, during 2018-19, among male workers, the industry sector, &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&#39; sector engaged about 25.2 percent while &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; and &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sectors accounted for about 21.9 percent and 22.3 percent, respectively.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among female workers in the urban, &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sector (other than &lsquo;trade, hotel &amp; restaurant&rsquo; and &lsquo;transport, storage &amp; communications&rsquo;) shared the highest proportion of workers (45.6 percent), followed by &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; (24.5 percent) and &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&#39; (13.8 percent).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Informal sector and conditions of employment of the workers in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In India, 68.4 percent of the workers in non-agriculture sector were engaged in informal sector. The share of informal sector among male workers was 71.5 percent and among female workers was nearly 54.1 percent in non-agriculture.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 69.5 percent had no written job contract: 70.3 percent among males and 66.5 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 53.8 percent were not eligible for paid leave: 54.7 percent among males and 50.6 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Among regular wage/ salaried employees in the non-agriculture sector, 51.9 percent were not eligible for any social security benefit: 51.2 percent among males and 54.4 percent among females.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Unemployment Rate in usual status (ps+ss)</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Unemployment rate in the country was 5.8 percent. It was 5.6 percent among males and 3.5 percent among females in rural areas, while the rates were 7.1 percent among males and 9.9 percent among females in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; For educated (highest level of education secondary and above) persons of age 15 years and above, unemployment rate was 11.0 percent: 11.2 percent in rural areas and 10.8 percent in urban areas.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate among the rural male youth (persons of age 15-29 years) was 16.6 percent while the unemployment rate among the rural female youth was 13.8 percent during 2018-19. The unemployment rate among the urban male youth was 18.7 percent while the unemployment rate for urban female youth was 25.7 percent during this period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Kindly note:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is defined as the percentage of persons in the labour force in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>LFPR = {(Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>WPR = {Number of employed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Proportion Unemployed (PU) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed in the population.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>PU = {Number of unemployed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>UR = {Number of unemployed persons divided by (Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) } multiplied by 100</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity (ps) and usual subsidiary economic activity (ss) of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>The labour force in current weekly status gives the average picture of the labour force participation in a short period of one week during the survey period. The estimate of labour force according to the current weekly status approach gives the number of persons who worked for at least 1 hour or was seeking/ available for work for at least 1 hour on any day during the 7 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Domestic Workers Sector Skill Council (DWSSC) -- a <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">not-for-profit company</a> that works under the ambit of Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship -- has done a survey during the COVID-19&nbsp; lockdown in India. DWSSC did a random sample survey among 200 workers spread across eight states -&ndash; Delhi, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu. Had the sample size been larger, the results could have differed, according to DWSSC. The results of the survey are indicative of the problems faced by domestic help during the lockdown.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The key findings of the survey done by Domestic Workers Sector Skill Council&nbsp;entitled [inside]Effects of Lockdown on Domestic Workers (released in June 2020)[/inside] are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/DWSSC_Survey_Report.pdf">click here</a> to access):</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Nearly 96 percent of the domestic workers stopped going to work during lockdown while only 4 percent continued working.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; During the lockdown, when physical movement of citizens was restricted, domestic workers too got affected. They were asked not to report to work and the government advised the employers to pay them during the lockdown period. Nearly 85 percent domestic workers were found not to be paid by their employers during the lockdown period while only 15 percent were being paid during the same span. Most domestic workers residing in big cities were being paid by their employers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; DWSSC survey shows that about 30 percent of the domestic workers didn&rsquo;t have enough money/ cash with them. This was their biggest challenge as they didn&#39;t know how long they would be able to manage with the small amount of money left with them. Most domestic workers did not receive payments during the lockdown period from their employers.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Almost 38 percent of domestic workers faced problems in arranging food as the stocks available in the nearby shops were limited. Though not all but some domestic workers also faced problems in accessing ration from PDS shops.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Roughly one-fourth of domestic workers did not face any problem related to food and majority of them were either those who returned back to their native place or workers whose employers were paying them wages/ salaries during the lockdown period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Approximately 23.5 percent of domestic workers migrated back to their native places as their spouse/ guardians (fathers) were daily wage workers like painters, mason, etc. Most domestic workers who returned back were mainly from big cities. Almost 76.5 percent workers have stayed back in the cities/ towns where they work as they were living there along with their families.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Only 41.5 percent of the domestic workers were aware about government helplines to avail the facilities being provided during the lockdown period.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Majority of the domestic workers (nearly 98.5 percent) were aware about the precautions to be taken to avoid getting infected by COVID-19.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">DWSSC website</a> states that domestic workers or domestic help constitute nearly 20 million of the workforce, majority being women whose services mostly go unrecognized. These millions of domestic help can be found in Indian families from lower middle-class households in the villages to the most affluent ones in the metropolitan cities. Domestic workers function as &lsquo;lifelines&rsquo; to households, render multiple types of services, as full-time and part-time, live-in and live-out, and they are described as &lsquo;domestic servants&rsquo;. The practices associated with this occupation are undignified and completely unacceptable, partly for the reason that domestic workers have not yet acquired the status of a profession or a trade.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A domestic worker may perform variety of services for an individual or a family, providing care to children, elderly, ailing, disabled, besides household maintenance, cooking, laundry, shopping, etc., while functioning as skilled and unskilled worker. Domestic workers constitute one of the largest segments of the unorganised sector, and their size is vaguely estimated to be between 4.75 million and 25 million, says the <a href="http://dwsscindia.in/about-us-2/">DWSSC website</a>. They mostly belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes communities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/almost-sixty-percent-of-agricultural-households-who-did-harvest-in-april-reported-a-yield-loss-shows-a-telephone-survey-conducted-across-twelve-states.html">here</a>, <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Press-Release_Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Agriculture-and-Food-Security-in-India_May-2020.pdf">here</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/Powerpoint-Slides_Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Agriculture-and-Food-Security-in-India_May-2020.pdf">here</a> to access the key findings of the study entitled [inside]Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture and Food Security in India (released on 20th May, 2020)[/inside], which has been done by Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA, Hyderabad), Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI, New Delhi), and Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health (Boston).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/lockdown-has-impacted-rural-livelihoods-badly-shows-recent-report-by-a-group-of-ngos.html">here</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/upload/files/COVID%20Induced%20Lockdown%20and%20the%20hInterland_May%2013%202020.pdf">here</a> to access the key findings of a rapid assessment survey on rural livelihoods entitled&nbsp;[inside]COVID-19 induced Lockdown &ndash; How is the Hinterland Coping? (released on 13th May, 2020)[/inside], which was undertaken by VikasAnvesh Foundation, Sambodhi, Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN), BAIF Development Research Foundation (BAIF), Action for Social Advancement (ASA), SATHI-UP, Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP), Grameen Sahara and Transforming Rural India Foundation (TRIF).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts-57/lockdown-led-to-massive-job-losses-find-results-of-an-ongoing-telephonic-survey.html">click here</a> to access the preliminary findings of an ongoing survey entitled [inside]COVID-19: Analysis of Impact and Relief Measures Study (released on 12th May, 2020)[/inside], undertaken by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University along with civil society organisations.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://im4change.org/latest-news-updates/situation-of-gurgaon-workers-became-worse-after-the-announcement-of-lockdown-2-shows-a-rapid-survey.html">click here</a> to access the key findings of the rapid assessment survey report entitled [inside]Taking Stock: Assessing Distribution and Distress in Gurugram during the COVID-19 Lockdown (released on 26th April, 2020)[/inside]. Kindly <a href="https://im4change.org/images/media/GNEM%20Report_26April.pdf">click here</a> to access the action research report by Gurgaon Nagrik Ekta Manch.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/NCAER_DCVTS2_PressRelease.pdf">click here</a> to access the key findings of the [inside]Second Round of Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey conducted by National Data Innovation Centre, NCAER (released on 1st May, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) released the results of its first round of the Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey (DCVTS), on 12th April, 2020. The study, conducted by NCAER&rsquo;s National Data Innovation Centre uses a scientifically designed rapid telephone survey in both the urban and rural parts of Delhi NCR to assess:</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; people&rsquo;s knowledge of the Coronavirus</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; people&rsquo;s attitudes and perceptions towards the risk of a Coronavirus infection</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; preventive and control measures, especially social distancing, and the feasibility of adhering to them</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on people&rsquo;s livelihoods, income, social life, and access to essential items.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The DCVTS interviewed a representative random sample of some 1,750 adults covering the entire Delhi NCR,&nbsp;comprising 31 districts spread across the four states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, during 3rd-6th April, 2020.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="/upload/files/NCAER%201st%20round%20telephonic%20survey.pdf">click here</a> to access the key findings of the [inside]First Round of Delhi National Capital Region Coronavirus Telephone Survey conducted by NCAER (released on 12th April, 2020)[/inside].</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Annual Report is based on the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by NSSO from July 2017 to June 2018. The survey was spread over 12,773 first stage units viz. FSUs (7,014 villages and 5,759 urban blocks) covering 1,02,113 households (56,108 in rural areas and 46,005 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,33,339 persons (2,46,809 in rural areas and 1,86,530 in urban areas). Estimates of the labour force indicators are presented in this report based on the usual status (ps+ss) approach and current weekly status approach adopted in the survey for classification of the population by activity statuses. The reference period for usual status (ps+ss) approach is 1 year and for current weekly status approach, it is 1 week. A rotational panel sampling design was used in urban areas. In this rotational panel scheme each selected household in urban areas is visited four times &ndash; in the beginning with first visit schedule and thrice periodically later with revisit schedule. There was no revisit in the rural samples. The estimates of household and population, labour force, workforce and unemployment presented here are based on data collected in the Schedules of first visit in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
The key findings of the [inside]Annual Report on Periodic Labour Force Survey (July 2017 - June 2018)[/inside], which has been produced by the National Statistical Office (released in May 2019) are as follows (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/216Annual_Report_PLFS_2017_18_31052019.pdf">click here</a> to access):&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<strong>Labour Force</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; During 2017-18, according to usual status (ps+ss), about 54.9 percent of rural males and 18.2 percent of rural females were in the labour force. During this period, about 57 percent of urban males and 15.9 percent of urban females were in the labour force according to usual status (ps+ss).&nbsp;<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18, LFPR in usual status (ps+ss) for rural males remained almost at the same level.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, for rural female, LFPR decreased by nearly 8 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18 it further decreased by around 7 percentage points.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18 rounds, LFPR in usual status (ps+ss) for urban males remained at the same level. For urban females, between 2004-05 and 2011-12, LFPR decreased by about 2 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18, it remained almost at the same level.<br />
<br />
&bull; During 2017-18, according to current weekly status, about 54.4 percent of rural males and 16.1 percent of rural females were in the labour force. During this period, about 56.7 percent of urban males and 15.3 percent of urban females were in the labour force according to current weekly status.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2011-12 as well as between 2011-12 and 2017-18, LFPR in current weekly status for rural males remained almost at the same level. Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, for rural female, LFPR decreased by nearly 7 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18 it further decreased by around 5 percentage points.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2004-05 and 2017-18, LFPR in current weekly status for urban males remained at the same level. For urban females, between 2004-05 and 2011-12, LFPR in current weekly status, decreased by about 2 percentage points and between 2011-12 and 2017-18, it increased by nearly 1 percentage point.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, LFPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 38.2 percent: it was 38.1 percent in rural areas and 38.5 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, LFPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 49.8 percent: it was 50.7 percent in rural areas and 47.6 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
<strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR)</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) according to usual status (ps+ss) was about 34.7 percent at the all-India level. It was about 35 percent in rural areas and 33.9 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; The WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) was 51.7 percent for rural males, 17.5 percent for rural females, 53 percent for urban males and 14.2 percent for urban females.<br />
<br />
&bull; The WPR according to current weekly status (CWS) was about 32.7 percent at the all-India level: 32.6 percent in rural areas and 32.9 percent in urban areas. The WPR according to CWS was 49.6 percent for rural males, 14.8 percent for rural females, 51.7 percent for urban males and 13.3 percent for urban females.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15-29 years, WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 31.4 percent: it was 31.8 percent in rural areas and 30.6 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, WPR according to usual status (ps+ss) in India was 46.8 per cent: it was 48.1 per cent in rural areas and 43.9 percent in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; In 2017-18, 24.8 percent of rural working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed.<br />
<br />
<strong>Unemployment Rate</strong><br />
<br />
&bull; According to usual status (ps+ss), unemployment rate was 5.8 percent among males and 3.8 percent among females in rural areas, while the rates were 7.1 percent among males and 10.8 percent among females in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; According to current weekly status (CWS), the unemployment rate was 8.8 percent among males and was 7.7 percent among females in rural areas while the rates were 8.8 percent among males and 12.8 percent among females in urban areas.<br />
<br />
&bull; For educated (highest level of education secondary and above) rural males and rural females of age 15 years and above, unemployment rates according to usual status (ps+ss) were 10.5 percent and 17.3 percent, respectively.<br />
<br />
&bull; For educated males of age 15 years and above in urban areas, the unemployment rate was 9.2 percent and among the educated females of age 15 years and above in the urban areas, the unemployment rate was 19.8 per cent in 2017-18.<br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate among the rural male youth (persons of age 15-29 years) was 17.4 percent while the unemployment rate among the rural female youth was 13.6 percent during 2017-18. The unemployment rate among the urban male youth was 18.7 percent in 2017-18 while the unemployment rate for urban female youth was 27.2 percent during 2017-18.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Kindly note:</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<em>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is defined as the percentage of persons in the labour force in the population.<br />
<br />
LFPR = {(Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the percentage of employed persons in the population.<br />
<br />
WPR = {Number of employed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Proportion Unemployed (PU) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed in the population.<br />
<br />
PU = {Number of unemployed persons divided by Total population} multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of persons unemployed among the persons in the labour force.<br />
<br />
UR = {Number of unemployed persons divided by (Number of employed persons + Number of unemployed persons) } multiplied by 100<br />
<br />
In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity (ps) and usual subsidiary economic activity (ss) of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The labour force in current weekly status gives the average picture of the labour force participation in a short period of one week during the survey period. The estimate of labour force according to the current weekly status approach gives the number of persons who worked for at least 1 hour or was seeking/ available for work for at least 1 hour on any day during the 7 days preceding the date of survey.</em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
As per the report entitled [inside]State of Working India 2019[/inside] (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/431State_of_Working_India_2019_Centre_for_Sustainable_Employment_Azim_Premji_University.pdf">click here</a> to access), which has been prepared by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University:<br />
<br />
&bull; In the present report an update on the jobs situation for the period between 2016 and 2018 is presented along with some ideas for employment generation.<br />
<br />
&bull; The first few months of 2019 have been unusually eventful for labour economists and statisticians in India. The ongoing controversy over job creation received a fresh impetus early in the new year with Somesh Jha&#39;s Business Standard expos&eacute; of a new National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) report on employment. Jha reported the &lsquo;leaked&rsquo; findings of the newly instituted Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), which showed that unemployment rates had risen to an all-time high of 6.1 percent in 2017-2018.<br />
<br />
&bull; India&rsquo;s labour statistics system is in transition. The five-yearly employment-unemployment surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSS-EUS), the last of which was in 2011-12, have been discontinued. The annual surveys conducted by the Labour Bureau (LB-EUS) have also been discontinued. The last available survey in this series is from 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; The current NDA government has not released the results of the last Labour Bureau survey (2016-17), nor the results of the new high frequency Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by the NSSO, both of which have been cleared by the concerned authorities for public release. Thus we do not have official employment numbers based on nationally representative household surveys after 2015-16.<br />
<br />
&bull; In the absence of official survey data, the report has used data from the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) to understand the employment situation between 2016 and 2018.<br />
<br />
&bull; CMIE-CPDX is a nationally representative survey that covers about 160,000 households and 522,000 individuals and is conducted in three &lsquo;waves&rsquo;, each spanning four months, beginning from January of every year. An employment-unemployment module was added to this survey in 2016.<br />
<br />
&bull; Analysis of CMIE-CPDX reveals that five million men lost their jobs between 2016 and 2018, the beginning of the decline in jobs coinciding with demonetisation in November 2016, although no direct causal relationship can be established based only on these trends.<br />
<br />
&bull; Analysis also reveals that unemployment, in general, has risen steadily post 2011. Both the PLFS and the CMIE-CPDX report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018, double of what it was in the decade from 2000 to 2011.<br />
<br />
&bull; India&#39;s unemployed are mostly the higher educated and the young. Among urban women, graduates are 10 per cent of the working age population but 34 percent of the unemployed. The age group 20-24 years is hugely over-represented among the unemployed. Among urban men, for example, this age group accounts for 13.5 per cent of the working age population but 60 percent of the unemployed.<br />
<br />
&bull; In addition to rising open unemployment among the higher educated, the less educated (and likely, informal) workers have also seen job losses and reduced work opportunities since 2016.<br />
<br />
&bull; In general, women are much worse affected than men. They have higher unemployment rates as well as lower labour force participation rates.<br />
<br />
&bull; There is a decline in the size of the labour force as well as the workforce, and a concomitant increase in the rate of unemployment, between 2016 and 2018. This is a matter of concern.<br />
<br />
&bull; From the table below, it could be seen that: a. Although the levels of WPR, LFPR and UR differ quite a bit between surveys, the trends are similar; b. The levels match much better across surveys for men than for women; and c. LFPR and WPR are broadly similar across surveys, while there is greater variation in UR reported across surveys.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<img alt="Table" src="tinymce/uploaded/Table_7.jpg" style="height:396px; width:1110px" /><br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note:</strong> Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR, percentage of working age people working or looking for work); Workforce Participation Rate (WPR, percentage of working age people working); and Unemployment Rate (UR, percentage of those in the labour force who are looking for work)</em><br />
<br />
**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
The key findings of the report entitled [inside]State of Working India 2018[/inside] (please <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/577State_of_Working_India_2018.pdf">click here</a> to access), which has been produced by Centre for Sustainable Employment, Azim Premji University, are as follows:<br />
<br />
&bull; In the 1970s and 1980s, when GDP growth was around 3-4 percent, employment growth was around 2 percent per annum. Since the 1990s, and particularly in the 2000s, GDP growth accelerated to 7 percent but employment growth slowed to 1 percent or even less. The ratio of employment growth to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is now less than 0.1 percent.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2013 and 2015, total employment actually shrank by seven million. More recent data from private sources show that the absolute decline has continued past 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; Unemployment rate is over 5 percent overall, and a much higher 16 percent for youth and the higher educated.<br />
<br />
&bull; Despite rising wages, they continue to be well below the Seventh Central Pay Commission&rsquo;s recommended minimum level.<br />
<br />
&bull; When adjusted for inflation, wage rates have increased in most sectors at 3 percent per annum or more.<br />
<br />
&bull; Between 2010 and 2015, wages when adjusted for inflation, grew at 2 percent per annum for organised manufacturing, 4 percent for unorganised manufacturing, 5 percent for unorganised services, and 7 percent for agriculture (for the last, growth has collapsed since 2015). Since 2000, real wages have grown at around 3-4 percent in most sectors, with the exception of agriculture. As this rate real wages double every two decades.<br />
<br />
&bull; 82 percent of male and 92 percent of female workers earn less than Rs. 10,000 a month. Nationally, 67 percent of households reported monthly earnings of upto Rs. 10,000 in 2015. In comparison, the minimum salary recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC) is Rs. 18,000 per month. Even in the organised manufacturing sector 90 percent of the industries pay wages below the CPC minimum.<br />
<br />
&bull; In the early 1980s, one crore rupees of real fixed capital (in 2015 prices) supported around 90 jobs in the organised manufacturing sector. By 2010, this had fallen to 10.<br />
<br />
&bull; Contract workers comprise 30 percent of all workers in organised manufacturing. The share of contract work and other precarious forms of labour have grown since the early 2000s.<br />
<br />
&bull; Labour productivity is over six times what it was in 1982, but production workers&rsquo; real wages have grown by only about 1.5 times.<br />
<br />
&bull; Employment in the new service sector, including IT and modern retail, increased from 11.5 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2015. However, more than 50 per cent of service sector employment is still made up of petty trade, domestic services and other types of small-scale and informal employment.<br />
<br />
&bull; Women constitute 16 percent of all service sector workers but 60 percent of domestic workers. Women constitute just 22 percent of manufacturing.<br />
<br />
&bull; Women earn between 35 and 85 percent of men&rsquo;s earnings, depending on the type of work and the level of education of the worker. In the organised manufacturing sector, the gap narrowed from 35 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2013. The disparity is the largest among own-account women workers and the least among the higher educated and regular workers.<br />
<br />
&bull; The percentage of working age women who are either employed or looking for work is low in India compared to many other developing countries. While only 20 women are in paid employment for every 100 men in Uttar Pradesh, this number is 50 in Tamil Nadu and 70 in the north-east.<br />
<br />
&bull; The ratio of female to male labour force participation rate varies from less than 0.2 in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab to 0.5 in TN and AP, to a more than 0.7 in Mizoram and Nagaland. Field studies suggest that lack of available work, rather than social restrictions, may be preventing women from entering the labour force.<br />
<br />
&bull; Scheduled Caste (SC) as well as Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups are over-represented in low paying occupations and severely under-represented in the high paying occupations, which clearly indicates the enduring power of caste-based segregation in India.<br />
<br />
&bull; SCs earn only 56 percent of upper-caste earnings. The figure is 55 percent for STs and 72 percent for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=43504">click here</a> to access the [inside]Report on &ldquo;Measuring Productivity at the Industry Level &ndash; The India KLEMS Database&rdquo;, 27 March, 2018, Reserve Bank of India[/inside]. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the report.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Task%20Force%20on%20Improving%20Employment%20Data%20%20Report%20for%20Public%20Comments.pdf">click here</a>&nbsp; to access the [inside]Draft Report of the Task Force on Improving Employment Data (2017) chaired by Arvind Panagariya, NITI Aayog[/inside]. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the report.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_7th_round_Report_final_12032018.pdf" title="QES 7th round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Seventh Quarterly Report on Employment Scenario in selected&nbsp; sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2017[/inside], released in March 2018, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/formal-employment-rises-but-less-no-of-regular-jobs-created-in-2nd-quarter-of-03917-18-4684294.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Seventh Quarterly Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2017.</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Sixth_round_QES_report.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Sixth_round_QES_report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Sixth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2017[/inside], released in February 2018, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/labour-bureau039s-new-report-indicate-layoffs-of-casual-contract-workers-in-q1-of-2017-18-4683957.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Sixth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2017.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/5th_QES_Report.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/5th_QES_Report.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]Fifth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2017[/inside], released in December 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment. Please <a href="https://im4change.org/news-alerts/casual-employment-worst-hit-after-note-ban-shows-new-report-4683563.html">click here</a> to access the major findings of the Fifth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2017.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report_QES_4th_Round_F.pdf" title="QES 4th Round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Fourth Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st January, 2017[/inside], released in April 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_3rd_Report_NewSeries.pdf" title="QES 3rd round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Third Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st October, 2016[/inside], released in March 2017, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_2nd_Round_NewSeries.pdf" title="QES 2nd round">click here</a> to access the [inside]Second Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st July, 2016[/inside], released in December 2016, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/QES_Report_Jan_2016.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/QES_Report_Jan_2016.pdf">click here</a> to access the [inside]First Quarterly&nbsp; Report on Employment Scenario in selected sectors (new series) as on 1st April, 2016[/inside], released in September 2016, Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment,</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">The Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1 is based on a survey (field work) that was executed from April, 2015 to December, 2015. A total sample of 1,56,563 households has been covered for the survey, with a break up of 88,783 households from rural areas and 67,780 households from urban areas.<br />
<br />
For the survey, altogether 7,81,793 persons were inquired, out of which 4,48,254 respondents belonged to rural households and the rest 3,33,539 respondents belonged to urban households.<br />
<br />
A moving reference period of last twelve completed months from the date of survey is used to derive various estimates of labour force and its derivatives for preparing the Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1.<br />
<br />
As per the [inside]Report on Fifth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey (2015-16) Volume-1 (released in September 2016)[/inside], which has been prepared by the Labour Bureau (Chandigarh), please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%205th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202015-16.pdf" title="Report on 5th Annual Employment Unemployment Survey 2015-16">click here</a> to access:<br />
<br />
&bull; The unemployment rate was estimated to be 5.0 percent at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach. In rural areas, unemployment rate stood at 5.1 percent whereas in urban areas, the same was 4.9 percent (as per the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, the female unemployment rate was estimated to be 8.7 percent, whereas for males it was 4.0 percent (as per the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was estimated to be 50.3 percent at the national level as per the Usual Principal Status (UPS) approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, the LFPR was estimated to be 53 percent whereas in the urban areas the LFPR was estimated to be 43.5 percent as per the UPS approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, female LFPR was estimated to be 23.7 percent as compared to 75 percent for males and 48 percent for transgenders.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was estimated to be 47.8 percent at the national level, based on the UPS approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, the WPR was estimated to be 50.4 percent as compared to 41.4 percent in the urban areas (based on the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; The female WPR was estimated to be 21.7 percent at the national level as compared to the male WPR of 72.1 percent and 45.9 per cent for transgenders (based on the UPS approach).<br />
<br />
&bull; Majority of the employed persons were found to be self-employed based on both the Usual Principal Status (UPS) and Usual Principal &amp; Subsidiary Status (UPSS) approach.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 46.6 percent of the workers were found to be self-employed, followed by 32.8 percent as casual labour (based on UPS approach). Nearly 17 percent of the employed persons were wage/ salary earners and the rest 3.7 percent were contract workers.<br />
<br />
&bull; Based on the UPS approach, at the national level, 46.1 percent of the persons were found to be employed in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing sector (also called primary sector), followed by 21.8 percent in the secondary sector and 32 percent in the tertiary sector.<br />
<br />
&bull; Almost 60.6 percent of the persons aged 15 years and above who were available for work for all the 12 months during the reference period were able to get work throughout the year, at the national level. In rural areas, 52.7 percent of the persons aged 15 years and above who were available for work for all the 12 months during the reference period were able to get work throughout the year at the national level, whereas the corresponding figure for urban areas stood at 82.1 percent.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 67.5 percent of self-employed workers had average monthly earnings of upto Rs. 7500. Only 0.1 percent of the self-employed were estimated to have earnings above Rs. 1 lakh.<br />
<br />
&bull; Similarly, 57.2 percent of regular wage/ salaried workers had monthly average earnings of upto Rs. 10,000. At the national level, 38.5 percent of the contract workers and 59.3 percent of the casual workers had monthly earnings of upto Rs. 5000.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, majority of unemployed persons (33.5 percent) used more than two methods to seek work i.e. through friends &amp; relatives (24.1 percent), followed by applications made in response to advertisement (23.7 percent), and through employment exchanges (4.3 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the country level, 58.3 percent of unemployed graduates and 62.4 percent of unemployed post graduates cited non-availability of jobs matching with education/ skill and experience as the main reason for unemployment, followed by non-availability of adequate remuneration cited by 22.8 percent of graduates, and 21.5 percent of post graduates.<br />
<br />
&bull; In India, 64.9 percent of regular wage/ salaried workers, 67.8 percent of contract workers and 95.3 percent of the casual workers do not have a written job contract. Nearly, 27 percent of the regular wage/salaried workers and 11.5 percent of the contract workers had written job contract of more than three years.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, only 20.6 percent of workers except self-employed received paid leave and just 21.6 percent availed social security benefits. A majority 71.2 percent of workers were not eligible for social security benefits.<br />
<br />
&bull; Almost 24 percent households benefitted from employment generating schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Prime Minister&#39;s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) etc.<br />
<br />
&bull; Only three North Eastern states, namely Tripura, Manipur and Mizoram have more than 70 percent of the households that benefited from MGNREGA.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, about 77 percent of the households were reported to be having no regular wage/ salaried person.<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, a little more than 67 percent of the surveyed households had average monthly earnings not exceeding Rs. 10,000 only. In rural areas, such households constituted about 77 percent, whereas the corresponding proportion was about 45 percent among urban households.<br />
<br />
&bull; The state of Madhya Pradesh recorded the highest proportion (35.8 percent) of households with average monthly earnings not exceeding Rs. 5,000, followed by West Bengal (34.5 percent), Uttar Pradesh (30.1 percent) and Odisha (29.8 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, 94.4 percent of the households surveyed had saving bank accounts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Note: </em></strong><br />
<br />
The <strong>Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) </strong>is defined as the number of persons in the labour force per 1000 persons (of the population).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Worker Population Ratio (WPR)</strong> is defined as the number of persons employed per 1000 persons (of the population aged 15 years &amp; above).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Proportion Unemployed (PU)</strong> is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons (of the population aged 15 years &amp; above).<br />
<br />
The <strong>Unemployment Rate (UR)</strong> is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons in the labour force (employed &amp; unemployed).<br />
<br />
<strong>Usual Principal Status (UPS) Approach: </strong>The major time criterion based on the 365 days is used to determine the activity pursued by a person under the UPS approach. Accordingly, the major time spent by a person (183 days or more) is used to determine whether the person is in the labour force or out of labour force. A person found unemployed under this approach reflects the chronic unemployment. In the present survey, the UPS approach estimates are derived for a moving reference period of last twelve months. For example, if the household is surveyed in January, 2014, the reference period for collection of information is January, 2013 to December, 2013.<br />
<br />
A person is classified as belonging to labour force as per the UPS approach, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons, who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.<br />
<br />
<strong>Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) Approach: </strong>The other important approach to measure the labour force parameters is the UPSS approach. This approach is a hybrid one which takes into consideration both the major time criterion and shorter time period (30 days or more in any economic activity). Thus a person who has worked even for 30 days or more in any economic activity during the reference period of last twelve months is considered as employed under this approach. In this approach, the reference period is same as taken in the usual principal status approach (UPS). This approach is also called the usual status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">[inside]Report on 4th Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2013-14[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%204th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202013-14.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%204th%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202013-14.pdf">click here</a> to access</p>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 3rd Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2012-13[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%203rd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202012-13.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%203rd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202012-13.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 2nd Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%202nd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202011-12.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%202nd%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202011-12.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<div style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;<br />
[inside]Report on 1st Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2009-10[/inside], Labour Bureau, Chandigarh, please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Report%20on%201st%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202009-10.pdf" title="http://www.im4change.org/siteadmin/tinymce//uploaded/Report%20on%201st%20Annual%20Employment%20Unemployment%20Survey%202009-10.pdf">click here</a> to access</div>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">As per the [inside]Economic Survey 2015-16[/inside], Ministry of Finance, (<a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol1.pdf">Volume-1</a> , <a href="http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapter-vol2.pdf">Volume-2</a>)<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of economically active population (15-59 years) has increased from 57.7 per cent to 63.3 per cent during 1991 to 2013, as per Sample Registration System (SRS) data for 2013.<br />
<br />
&bull; The employment growth in the organized sector (Public and Private combined) increased by 2 percent in 2012 over 2011, while it increased by only 1 percent in 2011 over 2010.<br />
<br />
&bull; The annual growth rate of employment for the private sector was 4.5 percent in 2012 over 2011 whereas the public sector registered a marginal growth of 0.4 percent in the same year.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Fourth Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey conducted by the Labour Bureau during the period January 2014 to July 2014 has shown that the Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is 52.5 percent for all persons. However, the LFPR for rural areas stands at 54.7 percent, which is much greater than that for rural areas i.e. 47.2 percent. The LFPR for women is significantly lower than that for males in both rural and urban areas. As per the Survey, the Unemployment Rate is 4.7 percent in rural areas and 5.5 percent in urban areas. The total unemployment rate reported is 4.9 percent as per the Labour Bureau Survey. These figures are much higher than the all India unemployment rates of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO, 2012-11) which reported unemployment rate of 2.3 percent for rural areas, 3.8 percent for Urban Areas and 2.7 percent for India as a whole.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Government has taken several measures including Labour reforms to improve the employment situation in the country as well as employment conditions for women. Some of the recent Labour reforms include the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act 2015, National Career Services Portal, Shram Suvidha Portal and Universal Account Number Facility.<br />
<br />
&bull; The National Policy on Skill Development and Entrepreneurship 2015 aims to ensure &lsquo;Skilling on a large Scale at a Speed with high Standards and promote a culture of innovation based entrepreneurship to ensure sustainable livelihoods&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) proposes to cover 24 lakh Indian youth with meaningful, industry relevant, Skill Based Training under which 5.32 lakh persons have already been enrolled. Of this number, 4.38 lakh have successfully completed training throughout India.<br />
<br />
&bull; In addition, the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), a placement-linked skill development scheme for rural youth who are poor, as a skilling component of the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) has also been launched. During 2015-16, against a target of skilling 1.78 lakhs candidates under the DDU-GKY, a total of 1.75 lakh have already been trained and 0.60 lakh placed till November 2015.<br />
<br />
&bull; With a view to increasing the scope of employability among differently-abled persons, the Government has launched a National Action Plan (NAP) for skill training. The plan has target of skilling 5 lakh differently-abled persons in next three years. Plans are also on the anvil to extend the NAP with an online skill-training platform with a target of 5 lakh every year.<br />
<br />
&bull; Under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, about 3.63 crore households have been provided employment of 134.96 crore person days during the current financial year (as on 1 January, 2016). Of this, 76.81 crore person days or 57 percent were availed of by women.<br />
<br />
&bull; The Economic Survey 2015-16 has expressed concern at the reported low rates of workforce participation for females. The level of financial inclusion of women in terms of number of women with bank accounts still remains low in India. However, it is noteworthy that there are women achievers in the financial sector, with leading nationalized banks and financial institutions headed by women, says the Economic Survey.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">For the report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation Among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12), the survey conducted by NSSO was spread over 12,737 First Stage Units-FSUs (7,469 villages and 5,268 urban blocks) covering 1,01,724 households (59,700 in rural areas and 42,024 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,56,999 persons (2,80,763 in rural areas and 1,76,236 in urban areas).&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The number of households surveyed at the all-India level in rural areas for the Hindus were 45,565, for the Muslims were 7,141, for the Christians were 4,177, for the Sikhs were 1,346 and for Others were 1,471. In urban areas the number of households surveyed for the Hindus were 31,470, for the Muslims were 6,135, for the Christians were 2,754, for the Sikhs were 747 and for Others were 917.<br />
<br />
The number of persons surveyed at the all-India level in rural areas for the Hindus were 2,10,103, for the Muslims were 37,497, for the Christians were 19,846, for the Sikhs were 6,646 and for Others were 6,671. In urban areas number of persons surveyed for the Hindus were 1,26,419, for the Muslims were 31,114, for the Christians were 11,575, for the Sikhs were 3329 and for Others were 3798.<br />
<br />
As per the [inside]NSS 68th Round Report entitled: Employment and Unemployment Situation among Major Religious Groups in India (2011-12) released in February, 2016, MoSPI[/inside] (please <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_568_19feb16.pdf">click here</a> to access):<br />
<br />
<em>Self-employment</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural India, proportion of households, having major source of income from self-employment, was almost at the same level among Hindus (49.9 percent), Christians (49.8 percent) and Muslims (49.2 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; In urban India, proportion of households with self-employment as the major source of income was the highest among Muslims (50 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Regular wage/ salary</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban India, Christians had the highest proportion of households having major source of income from regular wage/ salary earning (16 percent in rural India and 45.8 percent in urban India).<br />
<br />
<em>Casual labour</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural India, among the specific religious groups, proportion of households with casual labour as the major source of income was the highest among Hindus (34.8 percent) and lowest among Christians (24.5 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; In urban India, proportion of households with casual labour as the major source of income was the highest among Muslims (15 percent) and lowest for Sikhs (4.1 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Land possessed and land cultivated in rural areas</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, the proportion of households possessing land of size 4.01 hectares or more was the highest for Sikh households (8.5 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of households cultivating land of size 4.01 hectares or more was the highest for Sikh households (8.7 percent).<br />
<br />
<em>Literacy and Current Attendance in Educational Institutions</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 15 years and above, proportion of not-literates was the lowest for Christians (14.6 percent for rural males, 23.7 percent for rural females, 5.7 percent for urban males and 9 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
&bull; The proportion of persons of age 15 years and above with educational level secondary and above was the highest for Christians in rural areas for both males and females (36.3 percent for rural males and 31.1 percent for rural females) and for females in urban areas (62.7 percent) whereas for males in urban areas it was the highest among Sikhs (67.6 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 0-29 years, for major religious groups, current attendance rate in educational institutions was the highest for Christians (58.5 percent for rural males, 51.7 percent for rural females, 61.5 percent for urban males and 56.8 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
&bull; Among persons of age 0-29 years, for major religious groups, current attendance rate in educational institutions was the lowest among Muslims (48.7 percent for rural males, 42.1 percent for rural females, 47 percent for urban males and 46.3 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Labour Force according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, among males in both rural and urban areas, Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was the highest for Sikhs (57.6 percent in rural areas and 56.8 percent in urban areas respectively).<br />
<br />
&bull; For females in both rural and urban areas, LFPR was the highest for Christians (30.4 percent in rural areas and 27.7 percent in urban areas respectively).<br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban areas for both males and females LFPR was the lowest for Muslims (51.1 percent for rural males, 15.9 percent for rural females, 55.3 percent for urban males and 10.9 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Work Force according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, for males in rural areas, Worker Population Ratio (WPR) was the highest for Sikhs (56.9 percent) and in urban areas, it was the highest for Hindus (55 percent).<br />
<br />
&bull; For females in both rural and urban areas, WPR was the highest for Christians (28.4 percent in rural areas and 25.2 percent in urban areas).<br />
<br />
&bull; In both rural and urban areas for both males and females WPR was the lowest for Muslims (49.9 percent for rural males, 15.3 percent for rural females, 53.2 percent for urban males and 10.5 percent for urban females).<br />
<br />
<em>Unemployment Rate according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; Among the specific religious groups, unemployment rate in both rural and urban areas was the highest for Christians (4.5 percent in rural areas and 5.9 percent in urban areas) and lowest for Sikhs in rural areas (1.3 percent) and Hindus in urban areas (3.3 percent).<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note: </strong>In the usual status approach (ps+ss), the activity status of a person is determined on the basis of the reference period of last 365 days preceding the date of survey.<br />
<br />
The usual status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity and usual subsidiary economic activity of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss). According to the usual status (ps+ss), workers are those who perform some work activity either in the principal status or in the subsidiary status. Thus, a person who is not a worker in the usual principal status is considered as worker according to the usual status (ps+ss), if the person pursues some subsidiary economic activity for 30 days or more during 365 days preceding the date of survey.</em><br />
<br />
**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
According to the [inside]Economic Survey 2014-15[/inside] Vol. 1 &amp; 2 (Please click <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/448echapter-vol1.compressed.pdf">Vol1</a> and <a href="https://im4change.org/docs/476echapter-vol2.pdf">Vol2</a>&nbsp; to access):<br />
<br />
&bull; Estimates of employment growth and its elasticity relative to economic growth vary widely. However, tentatively, one might say that employment growth and elasticity have declined in the 2000s compared to the 1990s. Since labour force growth is in excess of employment growth, labour absorption will be a challenge. Reforms and faster economic growth will be central to meeting it.<br />
<br />
&bull; A few very tentative conclusions can be drawn from what are fairly noisy estimates. Aggregate employment growth has been above 2 percent in the 1990s. The Census and Economic Census are airly close to each other in this regard, although the NSS data paints a different picture. Employment growth declined to between 1.4 and 1.8 percent in the 2000s according to both the Census and NSS.<br />
<br />
&bull; In contrast, employment growth in organized industry exhibits the opposite temporal pattern, with substantially higher employment growth in the 2000s compared with the 1990s.<br />
<br />
&bull; A similar pattern is suggested for the employment elasticity of growth: higher elasticity of about 0.35-0.44 in the 1990s and a drop to close to 0.2 in the 2000s. The most recent data from the Labour Bureau indicates that since 2011-12 too, the employment elasticity has remained low. Employment absorption was evidently less successful in the last decade.<br />
<br />
&bull; Regardless of which data source is used, it seems clear that employment growth is lagging behind growth in the labour force. For example, according to the Census, between 2001 and 2011, labor force growth was 2.23 percent (male and female combined). This is lower than most estimates of employment growth in this decade of closer to 1.4 percent. Creating more rapid employment opportunities is clearly a major policy challenge.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A cause for concern is deceleration in the CAGR of employment during 2004-05 to 2011-12 to 0.5 per cent from 2.8 per cent during 1999-2000 to 2004-05 as against compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 2.9 per cent and 0.4 per cent in the labour force respectively for the same two periods.<br />
<br />
&bull; During 1999-2000 to 2004-05, employment on usual status (US) basis increased by 59.9 million persons from 398.0 million to 457.9 million as against the increase in labour force by 62.0 million persons from 407.0 million to 469.0 million.<br />
<br />
&bull; After a period of slow progress during 2004-05 to 2009-10, employment generation picked up during 2009-10 to 2011-12, adding 13.9 million persons to the workforce, but not keeping pace with the increase in labour force (14.9 million persons).<br />
<br />
&bull; A major impediment to the pace of quality employment generation in India is the small share of manufacturing in total employment. However data from the sixty-eighth National Sample Survey (NSS) round indicates a revival in employment growth in manufacturing from 11 per cent in 2009-10 to 12.6 per cent in 2011-12. Promoting growth of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME) is critical from this perspective.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/Labour.doc" title="Labour">click here</a> to access the [inside]Achievements and Initiatives in the Ministry of Labour and Employment[/inside] as per the Press Information Bureau&#39;s Press Note dated 8 September, 2014.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
According to the study titled: [inside]Trends in Rural Wage Rates: Whether India Reached Lewis Turning Point[/inside] by A Amarender Reddy (2013), International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT/CGIAR) (please <a href="tinymce/uploaded/2013%20Trends%20in%20rural%20wage%20rates_1.pdf" title="Trend in rural wage rates">click here</a> to download)<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many observe that since last decade, labor shortages in rural India have become an issue. Farmers in rural areas blame it on employment guarantee scheme MGNREGA, but there is no concrete evidence to prove this; some also claim that the faster growth of the economy and non-farm sector are the main reasons, which in fact is a good sign. However, there are no studies specifically to test the theoretical and empirical issues of rising wage rates in India. In this paper, trends in rural wages are assessed along the Lewis continuum through wage rates data.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The results of the present study show a clear rising trend in real wage rates since 1995, and then accelerating from 2007 onwards in developed states like Punjab, Haryana and Tamil Nadu. Less participation in public works program in Punjab and Haryana also indicates no surplus labor. This confirms that at least developed states in India crossed the Lewis Turning Point (LTP)*.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The acceleration of real wages even in slack season indicates that the era of labor shortage has started in rural areas especially in developed states like Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh, which needs to be tackled through labor saving technology and wide scale farm mechanisation. On the other hand it appears that the underdeveloped states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have not reached the LTP and needs to develop policies to increase productivity of rural labor in these backward states.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The results of the study show a clear rising trend in real wages since 1995 more particularly from 2007 especially in the developed states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. And the acceleration of this rising trend since 2007, even in slack seasons, indicates that the labor shortage is a permanent phenomenon and era of surplus labor is over.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the all India level, there is an upward movement in wage rates since 2006 onwards. The wage rates for mason and carpenter are much above all other wage rates, as both these require specialised skills, then followed by tractor driver. Among agricultural wage rates, ploughing occupy highest wages followed by sowing, harvesting and the lowest recorded among unskilled laborer. It is interesting to see that from 1995 to 2005 there is almost no trend in wage rates among all work types.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In slack season, wage rates increased steeply after 2007 onwards for all the categories of work indicating LTP. However, from 1995 to 2006 the wage rates in both slack and peak seasons have not increased. Overall, the sluggish real wages of 1995 to 2005 suggest an excess of rural labor force prior to 2005.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Over the years, the real wage rates for the activities such as well digging, Tractor driver and black smith have been increasing steeply. It is clearly evident that the unskilled labor in non-farm activities is being paid more than many of the farm activities like picking, weeding, transplanting and threshing. The highest paid farm activity is ploughing, which is the most common field operation for almost all the crops. Annual growth rates are much higher during 2007-2012, while during 1995 to 2006 there is mixed picture, with some work types showing negative growth.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The rapid economic growth in Haryana, Punjab and TN generated a high demand for rural laborers, as reflected in the relatively higher growth rate of wages in these states from 1995 to 2012. From 2005 onward, real wages began to rise substantially and simultaneously in all the states regardless of their development level.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is a significant positive association among the growth in wages of ploughing and harvesting with average days under MGNREGA. The growth of wages for sowing is having negative association with public work days, while growth rate of unskilled labor wage rates do not have any significant association with public work days in the states. Over all, there is no concrete evidence that there is a positive association between agricultural wages and employment days created by public works program across the states.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no string correlation between share of agriculture in GDP and growth in wage rates, indicating rural wage rate may be induced by expansion of urban (non-agricultural sector) sector in states like TN, Karnataka and Maharashtra or by expansion of agricultural sector as that in AP, Haryana and Punjab. But at least one of the sectors needs to be stronger in creating employment to cross the LTP. Urbanisation is playing an important role in increasing wage rates through upward push in rural labor markets as seen in TN, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Haryana. There is some possible positive influence of public works program (MGNREGA) on wage rates as in AP and TN which ranked first and second in public works program and also growth in wage rates.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The wage gap between non-agriculture and agriculture is higher in UP, followed by Gujarat, Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, MP and Maharashtra than the national average, while lower in Haryana, Karnataka, TN, AP and WB. In most of the state and at national level the wage gap is reducing in rural areas. At national level the wage gap increased from 1995 to 2005, then after decreased. At all India level it increased from 1.5 in 1995 to 1.7 in 2005, then declined to again 1.5 in 2012.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The growth of agricultural sector is now about 3 to 4% per annum, where as the growth of industry and service sectors is about 10-12% per annum. Share of agricultural sector reduced from 41% in 1973 to 14% in 2012, with consequent rise in non-agricultural sector from 59% to 86% of the GDP. The share of labor dependent on agriculture decreased from 74% to 50% and share of labor dependent on non-agriculture increased from 26% to 50% during the same period. The wage gap between non-agriculture and agriculture further increased from 3.5 to 4.0 to about 6.3 during the same period. As a result, a large number of laborers moved from the agricultural to the non-agricultural sectors (migration from rural to urban areas).<br />
<br />
<strong>Note: </strong><br />
<br />
* The structural change from an excess supply of labor to one of labor shortage is documented in progress of many developed and developing countries as Lewis Turning Point (LTP).</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the [inside]NSS report no. 551 (66/10/6) titled Status of Education and Vocational Training in India (66th Round)[/inside], July 2009-June 2010, published in March 2013, MoSPI, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/nss_report_551.pdf</a>:&nbsp;<br />
<br />
In the present survey, NSSO collected data on educational particulars like educational level attained &ndash; both general and technical, current attendance in educational institution, type of institution, vocational training received/ being received, etc. from the household members.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Status of Vocational Training Received/ being received</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Of the persons of age 15-59 years, about 1 per cent was receiving formal vocational training as on the date of survey, about 2 per cent reported to have received formal vocational training and another 5 per cent reported to have received non-formal vocational training. The proportion was lower in the case of females than in the case of males in both the rural and urban areas. Moreover, as expected, the proportions were higher in the urban areas than those in the rural areas.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Age Specific Rate for Formal Vocational Training Received</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The proportion of persons who received formal vocational training is observed to be the highest (2 per cent) in the age-group 20-24, in rural areas and it decreased gradually over the higher age-groups.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the urban areas, the proportion was the highest in the age-group 25-29 (6 per cent). When both rural and urban areas are considered, the proportion was the highest in the age-group 25-29 (3 per cent). The age-specific proportions for females were lower than those for males in both rural and urban areas.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Field of Formal Vocational Training</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Among rural males, the most demanded field of training was &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (18 percent) followed by &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (17 percent), &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (16 percent), &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades (12 percent) in the rural areas; and in the urban areas the most demanded field of training was &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (30 percent) followed by &lsquo;electrical and electronic engineering trades&rsquo; (19 percent), &lsquo;driving and motor mechanic work&rsquo; (11 percent) and &lsquo;mechanical engineering trades&rsquo; (10 per cent).<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Among rural female, the highest demand for field of training was observed in &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (26 percent).This was followed by the &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical services related work&rsquo; (14 percent). Among the urban female, the choices in terms of proportions were &lsquo;computer trades&rsquo; (32 percent), &lsquo;textile related work&rsquo; (18 percent) and &lsquo;health and paramedical related work&rsquo; (9 percent).<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Institution of Formal Vocational Training</strong></em><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; About 32 per cent of rural males received/ receiving formal vocational training from &lsquo;industrial training institute/industrial training centres&rsquo; followed by 13 per cent from &lsquo;recognised motor driving schools&rsquo;. For rural females the highest proportion of persons received/receiving formal vocational training was observed for &lsquo;Tailoring, Embroidery and Stitch Craft Institutes&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the urban areas highest proportion of males received/receiving formal vocational training was observed for &lsquo;Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) / Industrial Training Centres and for female the highest was for &lsquo;Tailoring, Embroidery and Stitch Craft Institutes&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Helpfulness of Formal Vocational Training</em></strong><br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the rural area, nearly 19 percent reported the training as helpful in taking up self-employment activity compared to 14 per cent in urban areas and in rural areas 32 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up wage/salaried employment compared to 51 per cent in urban areas. Nearly 36 per cent in rural areas and 24 per cent in urban areas reported that the training was not helpful in getting a job.<br />
<br />
&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the all-India level 59 percent of those received formal vocational training reported the training as helpful in getting a job (self-employment activity or wage/ salaried employment) - 16 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up self-employment activity and 44 per cent reported the training as helpful in taking up wage/ salaried employment.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The graph below shows that, compared to the year 2004-05, the Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person), according to the principal and subsidiary statuses taken together, during 2005-06 for males did not change in rural areas but decreased by 1 percentage point in urban areas. However, for females there was a decline of 2 percentage points in rural areas and 3 percentage points in urban areas during the same period.<br />
<br />
<strong>Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person) in the usual status in different NSS rounds </strong></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><img alt="Work Participation Rate (per 1000 person) in the usual status in different NSS rounds" src="tinymce/uploaded/img.JPG" style="height:365px; width:505px" /> </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><em><span style="font-size:small">Source: Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2005-06, NSS 62nd Round<br />
Note: * The Usual Status, determined on the basis of the usual principal activity and usual subsidiary economic activity of a person taken together, is considered as the usual activity status of the person and is written as usual status (ps+ss).</span></em></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to [inside]Global Wage Report 2012-13[/inside]: Wages and equitable growth, ILO,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_194843.pdf</a>:&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The authoritative sources of data on wage growth in India are the Annual Survey of Industries by the Central Statistics Office and the real wage index published by the Labour Bureau. Both data sources indicate that real wages declined in a majority of recent years, shrinking the purchasing power of wage earners. This would explain the many concerns expressed by workers in India about rapidly increasing prices, particularly food prices.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Analysis of the Employment&ndash;Unemployment Survey from the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), conducted every five years along with the Consumer Expenditure Survey, shows that salaried and casual workers saw a 150 per cent increase in their earnings&ndash; much higher than the 52 per cent increase in the consumer price index &ndash; in the five years between 2004/05 and 2009/10.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; India&rsquo;s real wages fell 1% between 2008 and 2011, while labour productivity grew 7.6% in the same period. In contrast, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 11% in 2008-11, while labour productivity expanded 9%. India&rsquo;s real wage growth was 1% in 1999-2007, while labour productivity rose by 5%. In 1999-2007, China&rsquo;s real wage growth was 13.5%, while labour productivity growth was 9%.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Using a different and non-comparable methodology, total hourly compensation costs in manufacturing were estimated at US$1.36 in China for 2008 and at US$1.17 in India for 2007 (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Although these differences are measured in current US dollars and therefore are dependent on exchange rate fluctuations, they nonetheless point towards the persistence of wide gaps in wages and labour productivity across the world.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In India, minimum wages paid through the National Rural Employment Generation Scheme (NREGS) appear to have reduced non-compliance with minimum wages in the private sector.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Monthly average wages adjusted for inflation&ndash;known as real average wages&ndash;grew globally by 1.2 per cent in 2011, down from 2.1 per cent in 2010 and 3 per cent in 2007. Omitting China, global real average wages grew at only 0.2 per cent in 2011, down from 1.3 per cent in 2010 and 2.3 per cent in 2007.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In developed economies, labour productivity has increased more than twice as much as wages since 1999. In the US, hourly labour productivity in the non-farm business sector increased by about 85 per cent while earnings only increased by about 35 per cent since about 1980. In Germany, labour productivity surged by almost a quarter over the past two decades while wages remained flat.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">Labour Bureau, an attached office of the Ministry of Labour &amp; Employment has released the results of the second annual employment &amp; unemployment survey conducted in the country for the period 2011-2012. During the survey, data has been collected from a sample of 1,28,298 households, out of which 81,430 households are in the rural sector and the remaining 46,868 households in the urban sector. &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to the [inside]Report on Second Annual Employment-Unemployment Survey 2011-12[/inside],</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_1.pdf</a>,&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/rep_2.pdf</a>,&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/press_n.pdf</a>: &nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Based on the survey results, 50.8 per cent or majority of the households are found to be having self employment as the major source of income under agricultural and non-agricultural activities.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; At all India level, 48.6 per cent persons are estimated to be self employed under the usual principal status (UPS)* approach followed by 19.7 per cent persons under wage/salary earners and rest 31.7 per cent persons under casual labourers category.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the rural areas, 11.1 per cent households are estimated to be having regular/wage salary earning as major source of income.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the urban areas, 42.3 percent households are estimated to be having regular wage/salary earnings as the major source of income followed by 34.4 per cent households under self employment category.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR)** is estimated to be 52.9 per cent under the usual principal status (UPS) approach at All India level.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In the rural sector the LFPR is estimated to be 54.8 per cent as compared to 47.2 per cent in the urban sector under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Female LFPR is significantly lower as compared to male LFPR under the usual principal status approach. At All India level, female LFPR is estimated to be 25.4 per cent as compared to 77.4 per cent in male category.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The Worker Population Ratio (WPR)*** is estimated to be 50.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The female WPR is estimated to be 23.6 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach as compared to the male WPR of 75.1 per cent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The unemployment rate**** is estimated to be 3.8 per cent at All India level under the UPS approach.&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In rural areas, unemployment rate is 3.4 per cent whereas in urban areas, the same is 5.0 per cent under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Despite relatively low LFPR, the unemployment rate is significantly higher among females as compared to males. At all India level, the female unemployment rate is estimated to be 6.9 per cent whereas for males, the unemployment rate is 2.9 per cent under the UPS approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The survey results show that majority of the persons are employed in the primary sector. Under Agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, 52.9 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under the tertiary or services sector, 27.8 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Under the manufacturing and construction sector i.e. the secondary sector, 19.3 per cent persons are estimated to be employed at All India level based on usual principal status approach.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">---</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Note:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>* Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year. </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>In the report, results are compiled for all the labour force measures namely usual principal status (UPS) approach, usual principal &amp;&nbsp;subsidiary status (UPSS) approach, current daily status (CDS) approach and current weekly status (CWS) approach. </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>** Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is&nbsp;defined as the number of persons (employed plus unemployed) in the labour force per 1000 persons </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>*** Worker Population Ratio (WPR) is defined as the number of persons employed per 1000 persons </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em>**** Unemployment Rate (UR) is defined as the number of persons unemployed per 1000 persons in&nbsp;the labour force (employed &amp; unemployed) </em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">According to [inside]Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in India, 2009-10 (released on 24 June, 2011)[/inside], Press Release, National Sample Survey Office, <a href="http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/Press_Note_KI_E&amp;UE_66th_English.pdf">http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/Press_Note_KI_E&amp;UE_66th_English.pdf</a>: &nbsp;<br />
<br />
The indicators on Employment and Unemployment in India in the 66th round of the survey are based on the Central Sample of 1,00,957 households (59,129 in rural areas and 41,828 in urban areas) surveyed from 7,402 sample villages in rural areas and 5,252 urban blocks spread over all States and Union Territories except in (i) interior villages of Nagaland situated beyond five kilometres of a bus route (ii) villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands which remain inaccessible throughout the year and (iii) Leh, Kargil and Poonch districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br />
<br />
<em>1. Distribution of Usual Status (ps+ss) workers according to employment status</em><br />
<br />
&bull; At the national level, among all the workers, about 51.0 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 33.5 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 15.6 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among the workers in the rural areas, about 54.2 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 38.6 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 7.3 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
&bull; Among the workers in the urban areas, about 41.1 per cent were &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, about 17.5 per cent were &lsquo;casual labour&rsquo; and 41.4 percent were &lsquo;regular wage/salaried&rsquo; employee.<br />
<br />
<em>2. Industry-wise distribution of workers according to usual status (ps+ss)</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, nearly 63 per cent of the male workers were engaged in the agricultural sector while in the secondary and tertiary sectors nearly 19 per cent and 18 per cent of the male workers were engaged. There was a higher dependence of female workers on agricultural sector: nearly 79 per cent of them were engaged in agricultural sector while secondary and tertiary sectors shared 13 per cent and 8 per cent of the female workers, respectively.<br />
<br />
&bull; The industry-wise distribution of workers in the urban areas was distinctly different from that of rural areas. In urban areas the share of the tertiary sector was dominant followed by that of secondary sector while agricultural sector engaged only a small proportion of total workers for both male and females. In urban areas, nearly 59 per cent of male workers and 53 per cent of the female workers were engaged in the tertiary sector. The secondary sector employed nearly 35 per cent of the male and 33 per cent of the female workers. The share of urban workforce in agriculture was nearly 6 per cent of male and 14 per cent for female workers.<br />
<br />
<em>3. Wage Rates of Regular Wage/Salaried Employees and Casual Labourers</em><br />
<br />
&bull; In urban areas, the average wage/salary was Rs. 365 per day and for the rural areas it was Rs. 232. In the rural areas, average wage/salary earnings per day received by male regular wage/ salaried employees was Rs. 249 and for females it was Rs. 156, indicating the female-male wage ratio as 0.63. In urban areas, male wage rate was Rs. 377 against the female wage rate of Rs. 309, indicating female-male wage ratio as 0.82.<br />
<br />
&bull; Wage rates (per day) for casual labour in works other than public works in rural areas was Rs. 93 and in urban areas it was Rs. 122. In the rural areas, average wage/salary earnings per day received by male casual labours engaged in works other than public works was Rs. 102 and for females it was Rs. 69 while in urban areas, the wage rates for casual labours in work other than public works was Rs. 132 for males and Rs. 77 for females.<br />
<br />
&bull; In rural areas, wage rates (per day) for casual labour in public works other than MGNREG public works was Rs. 98 for males and Rs. 86 for females. For casual labour in MGNREG public works, wage rate (per day) in rural areas was Rs. 91 for males and Rs. 87 for females.<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Note: </strong>Three reference periods used in NSS surveys are (i) one year, (ii) one week and (iii) each day of the reference week. Based on these three periods, three different measures of activity status are arrived at. The activity status determined on the basis of the reference period of one year is known as the Usual Status (US) of a person, that determined on the basis of a reference period of one week is known as the Current Weekly Status (CWS) of the person and the activity status determined on the basis of the engagement on each day during the reference week is known as the Current Daily Status (CDS) of the person. In US approach, there are two indicators viz. one based on principal activity called Usual Principal Status (ps) and other based on both principal and subsidiary activities taken together called US (ps+ss). The unit of measurements in case of US and CWS is persons and in case on CDS, it is person days.</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
Key findings of the [inside]Global Employment Trends 2011[/inside]: The challenge of a jobs recovery, International Labour Organization,<br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_150440.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_150440.pdf</a> are as follows:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>India specific points</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The report notes that the largest reductions in poverty continue to be recorded in eastern Asia, with poverty rates in China expected to fall to around 5 per cent in 2015. Poverty rates in India are expected to decline from 51 per cent in 1990 to 24 per cent in 2015, with the number of people living in extreme poverty expected to decrease by 188 million.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Economic growth in the South Asia region as a whole declined from 9.1 per cent in 2007 to 5.9 per cent in 2008 and to 5.5 per cent in 2009. It is estimated that the region&rsquo;s economy grew by 8.9 per cent in 2010, led by India, which registered rapid growth of 9.7 per cent in 2010.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; A larger share of women are engaged in vulnerable employment compared to men in South Asia, with gender-based gaps particularly large in India, Nepal and Pakistan. South Asia has the highest rate of vulnerable employment among all regions in the world, at 78.5 per cent of total employment in 2009. The rate has declined modestly in recent years, down from 81.1 per cent in 1999.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Unemployment remains elevated</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of unemployed globally stood at 205 million in 2010, essentially unchanged from the year earlier and 27.6 million higher than in 2007, with little hope for this figure to revert to precrisis levels in the near term. The global unemployment rate stood at 6.2 per cent in 2010, versus 6.3 per cent in 2009, but still well above the rate of 5.6 per cent in 2007.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The ILO projects a global unemployment rate of 6.1 per cent, equivalent to 203.3 million unemployed, through 2011. 55 per cent of the increase in global unemployment between 2007 and 2010 occurred in the Developed Economies and European Union (EU) region, while the region only accounts for 15 per cent of the world&rsquo;s labour force. In several economies in the developing world, such as Brazil, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Uruguay, unemployment rates have actually fallen below their pre-crisis levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The elevated level of global unemployment stands in stark contrast to the recovery that has been seen in several key macroeconomic indicators: real global GDP, private consumption, gross fixed investment and world trade had all recovered by 2010, surpassing pre-crisis levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; There has been an uneven recovery in labour markets, with a continued rise in joblessness in the Developed Economies and European Union region, a steady to slightly improving unemployment picture in most developing regions.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; An estimated 1.53 billion workers were in vulnerable employment in 2009, corresponding to a vulnerable employment rate of 50.1 per cent. There were 630 million workers (20.7 per cent of all workers in the world) living with their families at the extreme US$ 1.25 a day level in 2009. This corresponds to an additional 40 million working poor, 1.6 percentage points higher than projected on the basis of pre-crisis trends.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>A recovery in growth that has not brought about a comparable recovery in employment</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; At the global level, the employment-to-population ratio, which indicates whether the employment-generating capacity of a country or region is rising or falling, declined from 61.7 in 2007 to 61.2 in 2009 and is estimated at 61.1 per cent in 2010. Many economies are simply not generating sufficient employment opportunities to absorb growth in the working-age population.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; In 64 countries for which quarterly data are available, as of the second quarter in 2010, the number of countries with falling employment-to-population ratios was still twice the number that had rising ratios. It is clear that the ongoing economic recovery is not yet leading to a sufficient expansion in employment opportunities in many countries.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Industrial employment hardest hit</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Total global employment in industry declined slightly in 2009, which is a major divergence from the historical annual growth rate of 3.4 per cent over the period from 2002 to 2007. Employment in agriculture grew in 2009, which also represented a divergence versus historical trends.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Growing number of discouraged youth</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The number of unemployed youth (aged 15&ndash;24) is estimated to have declined from 79.6 million in 2009 to 77.7 million in 2010, though this is still well above the 2007 level of 73.5 million. The global youth unemployment rate stood at 12.6 per cent in 2010, up from 11.8 per cent in 2007, but down slightly from 12.8 per cent in 2009.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; However, unemployment rates understate the severe extent to which the crisis impacted young people as labour force participation among youth was strongly affected by the crisis. Across 56 countries with available data, there are 1.7 million fewer youth in the labour market than expected based on longer term trends, indicating that discouragement among youth has risen sharply. These discouraged youth are not counted among the unemployed because they are not actively seeking work.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Trends in labour productivity and real wages reveal pressure on employment quality</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Labour productivity growth turned negative in 2009, declining by 1.4 per cent versus growth of 3.3 per cent in 2007. In 2010, global productivity growth recovered to 3.1 per cent.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The problem of delayed labour market recovery is seen not only in the lag between output growth and employment growth and reduced unemployment but also in some countries in the lag between productivity growth and resumption in real wage growth. This phenomenon can threaten future recovery prospects, given the strong linkages between employment and growth in real wages on the one hand and consumption on the other.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>Stagnating progress in reducing vulnerable employment and slowed progress in reducing working poverty</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; On the basis of available data, the current estimate of the number of workers in vulnerable employment in 2009 is 1.53 billion, which corresponds to a global vulnerable employment rate of 50.1 per cent. The incidence of vulnerable employment remained roughly flat between 2008 and 2009, versus a steady and substantial average decline in the years preceding the crisis.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; The estimated working poverty rate at the extreme US$ 1.25 level for 2009 is 20.7 per cent, which is 1.6 percentage points higher than the rate projected on the basis of the pre-crisis trend. This amounts to around 40 million more working poor at the extreme US$ 1.25 level in 2009 than would have been expected on the basis of pre-crisis trends. The share of workers living with their families below the US$ 2 a day poverty line is estimated at around 39 per cent, or 1.2 billion workers worldwide.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><em><strong>An improved global economy, yet downside risks predominate in 2011</strong></em></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; Following a contraction in 2009, the global economy grew at a rapid pace of 4.8 per cent in 2010. The recovery is expected to continue in 2011, though at a more moderate pace (4.2 per cent). However, due to the fragile state of the labour market in many countries, high levels of public debt and continued vulnerabilities in the financial sector and private households, downside risks predominate.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&bull; On the basis of current macroeconomic forecasts, the global unemployment rate is projected at 6.1 per cent in 2011, corresponding to global unemployment of 203.3 million. This represents little improvement over 2010 levels.</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Report on Employment &amp; Unemployment Survey (2009-10)[/inside], Ministry of Labour and Employment, Labour Bureau, October, 2010 </span><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><a href="http://labourbureau.nic.in/Final_Report_Emp_Unemp_2009_10.pdf">http://labourbureau.nic.in/Final_Report_Emp_Unemp_2009_10.pdf</a>: &nbsp; </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The present Employment-Unemployment survey (prepared by the Labour Bureau) has been conducted in 28 States/UTs spread across the country in which about 99 per cent of the country&rsquo;s population resides. &nbsp;</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Under the survey, 45,859 household schedules have been canvassed of which 24,653 are rural and 21,206 are urban household schedules. A total of 2,33,410 persons have been interviewed to gather information from 45,859 households. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Information in the present Employment-Unemployment survey has been collected for the fixed reference period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey reveals that 45.5 percent of the overall working population is employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Only 8.9 percent of the working population is engaged in manufacturing, 8.8 percent is engaged in community services group and 7.5 in construction industry. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the rural areas, 57.6 percent of the working population is engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 7.2 percent of the working population is engaged in construction industry and 6.7 percent of the population is employed in manufacturing. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the urban areas, 9.9 percent of the working population is engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 8.6 percent of the working population is engaged in construction industry and 15.4 percent of the population is employed in manufacturing. Nearly 17.3 percent of the working population in urban India is employed in wholesale, retail etc. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey report acknowledges that agriculture sector is projected to generate no additional employment during the Eleventh Plan period. Employment in manufacturing is however expected to grow at 4 per cent while construction and transport &amp; communication are expected to grow at around 8.2 per cent and 7.6 per cent, respectively. The projected increase in total labour force during 11th Plan is 45 million. As against this, 58 million employment opportunities are targeted to be created during the Eleventh Plan. This is expected to reduce unemployment rate to below 5 per cent. However, the results of the present survey report shows that at the overall level the unemployment rate is estimated at 94, which imply that 9.4 per cent of the labour force is unemployed and looking for jobs. In absolute terms about 40 million persons are found unemployed based on the survey results at overall level of the State/UT&rsquo;s surveyed. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;A majority of the estimated unemployed persons (80 per cent) is in the rural sector at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Unemployment rate in rural India is 10.1 percent, whereas unemployment rate in urban India is 7.3 percent. Unemployment rate among male is 8.0 percent and among female is 14.6 percent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Comparison of Labour Bureau&rsquo;s present survey results for the year 2009-10 with NSSO&rsquo;s Employment-Unemployment survey results for 2007-08, reveals that the unemployment rate derived on the basis of the Bureau&rsquo;s survey is quite high. Higher unemployment rate may be parting attributed to as much as 10 per cent difference in the contribution of agriculture sector to total employment estimated in the present survey vis-&agrave;-vis the NSSO 2007-08 survey estimates. While the shift of workforce from agriculture to other sectors is a positive trend for a fast growing economy, the steep reduction in lower share of agriculture employment based on the Bureau&rsquo;s survey could be attributed to lack of adequate probing skills of the Contract Investigators.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Findings of the survey show that out of 1000 persons, 351 persons are in the employed category, 36 in the unemployed category and the rest 613 persons are out of labour force at overall level of the States/UT&rsquo;s surveyed. Within the employed category, out of 351 persons, 154 are self employed, 59 are regular wage/salaried and the remaining 138 are in casual labour category at overall level. In the rural sector for every 1000 persons, 356 persons are in the employed category, 40 are unemployed and the rest 604 persons are not in the labour force. In the urban sector out of every 1000 persons, the number of employed persons is 335, number of unemployed is 27 and the remaining 638 persons are not in the labour force. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Majority of the females in the urban sector (86 per cent) and the rural sector (81 per cent) are out of labour force.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It is seen that in the self employed person&rsquo;s category, maximum proportion of persons is engaged in agriculture, forestry &amp; fishing group (572 out of 1000 persons) followed by wholesale and retail trade (135 out of 1000 persons) at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the second employment category of regular wage/salaried person, maximum proportion of the employed is engaged in the community services (227 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by 153 in manufacturing industry.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the third employment category i.e. casual labour; a majority of the persons are in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry group (467 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by 148 in the construction sector.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey results reveal that majority of the employed persons are employed in proprietary type of enterprises (494 persons out of 1000 persons) followed by public/private limited companies (200 persons) etc at overall level. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;At the level of rural and urban sector also, majority of the workers are reportedly employed in the proprietary type of enterprises (517 persons and 428 persons respectively out of 1000 persons).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The survey results reveal that at overall level out of 1000 persons, 157 persons are getting paid leave or are eligible for paid leave. The industry wise break up shows that in community services group, a maximum of 443 persons out of 1000 persons are eligible for paid leave. On the other hand in agriculture, forestry &amp; fisheries group, a minimum of 54 persons out of 1000 persons have reported paid leave at overall level.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In case of other social security benefits such as the provident fund, gratuity, health care &amp; maternity benefits, pension etc., 163 persons out of 1000 persons have reported receiving some social security benefits in the enterprises in which they are employed. Again in community services group, a maximum of 400 persons out of 1000 persons have reported social security benefits in the units in which they are employed. In agriculture, forestry &amp; fishery group however a minimum of 82 persons out of 1000 persons have reported receiving social security benefits.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">**page**</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]World Social Security Report 2010/11[/inside]: Providing coverage in times of crisis and beyond, which has been produced by the International Labour Organization (ILO), <a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_146566.pdf">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_146566.pdf</a>: &nbsp; </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The notion of social security used in this report has two main (functional) dimensions, namely &ldquo;income security&rdquo; and &ldquo;availability of medical care&rdquo;.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Only one-third of countries globally (inhabited by 28 per cent of the global population) have comprehensive social protection systems covering all branches of social security (plus social assistance) as defined in Convention No. 102 and Recommendation No. 67.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world&rsquo;s working-age population (and their families) have effective access to comprehensive social protection systems.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Although a larger percentage of the world&rsquo;s population has access to health-care services than to various cash benefits, nearly one-third has no access to any health facilities or services at all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Many people in countries such as Cambodia, India and Pakistan shoulder up to 80 per cent of total health expenditures, with only a small portion of the population being covered by any form of social health protection mechanisms providing medical benefits such as tax-funded services or social, national or community-based insurances. High out-of-pocket payments are a major cause of impoverishment, and so it is not accidental that there is a strong correlation between the shares of out-of-pocket expenditure in a country and poverty incidence there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;30&ndash;36 per cent of the world&rsquo;s population has no access to the services of an adequate number of skilled medical professionals. Low-income countries in Africa and Asia show the highest levels of access deficits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In low-income countries no more than 35 per cent of all women in rural areas have access to professional health services, while in urban areas the access rate amounts to an average of about 70 per cent, which is still more than 20 percentage points lower than the access in high-income countries (where it is nearly complete).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Coverage by old-age pension schemes around the world, apart from in the developed countries, is concentrated on formal sector employees, mainly in the civil service and larger enterprises. The highest coverage is found in North America and Europe, the lowest in Asia and Africa.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;India&rsquo;s National Old-Age Pension Scheme, financed by central and state resources, reaches one-fourth of all the elderly: about half of pensioners who live in poverty. And in Brazil, social assistance pensions lift about 14 million people out of extreme poverty. A newly introduced social security scheme helped the Republic of Korea to adjust more smoothly to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Worldwide, nearly 40 per cent of the population of working age is legally covered by contributory old-age pension schemes. In North America and Europe this number is nearly twice as high, while in Africa less than one-third of the working-age population is covered even by legislation. Effective coverage is significantly lower than legal coverage. With the exception of North America and to a lesser extent Western Europe, effective coverage is quite low in all regions. In sub-Saharan Africa only 5 per cent of the working-age population is effectively covered by contributory programmes, while this share is about 20 per cent in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;While in high-income countries 75 percent of persons aged 65 or over are receiving some kind of pension, in low-income countries less than 20 per cent of the elderly receive pension benefits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Present entitlements to unemployment benefits tend to be restricted to those in formal employment, and exist mostly in high- and middle-income countries. Of 184 countries studied, statutory unemployment social security schemes exist in only 78 countries (42 per cent), often covering only a minority of their labour force. Coverage rates in terms of the proportion of unemployed who receive benefits are lowest in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (less than 10 per cent).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In the informal economy prevailing in many low income countries, conditions and safety of work are often dramatically bad, accidents and work-related diseases widespread and with no protection at all for their victims. Globally, estimated legal coverage represents less than 30 per cent of the working-age population, which is less than 40 per cent of the economically active.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;On average, 17.2 per cent of global GDP is allocated to social security. However, these expenditures tend to be concentrated in higher-income countries.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Unemployment insurance schemes are in place in only 64 of the 184 countries for which information is available. Social assistance, public works and similar programmes also have very limited coverage globally.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Globally slightly over a quarter of the world&rsquo;s adult population (one-third of adult men and one-fifth of adult women) is employed, whether formally or informally, as employees. If one looks only at those who have some kind of employment, less than half globally have the status of wage or salary workers. However, while in developed economies nearly 85 per cent of all employed are employees, the figure is not much more than 20 per cent in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, less than 40 per cent in South-East Asia and the Pacific, slightly more than 40 per cent in&nbsp; East Asia and about 60 per cent in North Africa, the Middle East and Latin America and the Caribbean &ndash; but not all of them are in formal employment and thus have access to statutory social security benefits.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;People without social security coverage in developing countries usually work in the informal rather than the formal economy. No access to social security coverage is usually part of the definition of informal employment.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America a minority of employed people are employees. In many African and South-East Asian countries especially less than 30 per cent of the employed work as wage workers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In Asia, Africa and some parts of Latin America, there are large gaps in the scope of social security schemes legally available to at least certain groups of workers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In Africa, North and Latin America, the Middle East and CIS public health-care financing comes mainly from general taxation, while in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe social insurance financing dominates.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The allocation for the NREGS programme in India from the national budget for the financial year 2006&ndash;07 was 0.3 per cent of GDP. Official cost estimates of the scheme, once fully operational; suggest that the budget could peak at 1.5 per cent of GDP. The programme is regarded as one of the largest rights-based social protection initiatives in the world, reaching around 40 million households living below the poverty line.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Report titled [inside]Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 2007-08[/inside] by National Sample Survey (NSS), MoSPI, Govt. of India is (</span><a href="http://mospi.gov.in/NSS_Press_note_531_25may10.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://mospi.gov.in/NSS_Press_note_531_25may10.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">) based on the household survey on Employment and Unemployment &amp; Migration Particulars conducted in its 64th round. The field work of the nationwide survey was carried out during July 2007 to June 2008. The survey covered a random sample of 5,72,254 persons, from 79,091 rural households and 46,487 urban households spread over 7921 villages and 4668 urban blocks in the country. The Report states that:<br />
<br />
<strong>A. Household and Population Characteristics</strong></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 72 per cent of the households belonged to rural India and accounted for nearly 74 per cent of the total population.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Average household size in India was 4.5. The rural household size (4.7) was slightly higher than urban household size (4.2).</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>B. Labour Force and Work Force</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the usual status (ps+ss), 41 per cent of population belonged to the labour force. This proportion was 43 per cent for rural and 37 per cent for urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The labour force participation rate (LFPR) was about 56 per cent of rural males and 29 per cent of rural females. The corresponding proportions in the urban areas were 58 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 40 per cent of the population in the country were employed according usual status (ps+ss). The worker population ratio (WPR) was about 42 per cent in the rural areas and 35 per cent in the urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The male WPR in both the rural and urban areas were considerably higher than female WPR. In both the rural and urban areas, male WPR was nearly 55 per cent. Compared to this, the female WPR was 29 per cent in rural areas and 14 per cent in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The WPRs obtained according to current daily status were lower than those obtained in the current weekly status, which, in turn, were lower than those according to usual status rates: WPR in India, was 34 per cent as per current daily status, 37 per cent according to current weekly status, and it was 40 per cent according to usual status.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2004-2005 and 2007-08, in both rural and urban areas, WPR for males in usual status (ps+ss) remained unchanged at 55 per cent. However, for females, it decreased by about 4 percentage points for rural areas (from 33 per cent to 29 per cent) and about 3 percentage points for urban areas (from 17 per cent to 14 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural India, among the usually employed (ps+ss), about 67 per cent of males and 84 per cent of females were engaged in agriculture sector. The corresponding figures in 1977-78 were 81 per cent and 88 per cent, respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In urban India, the &lsquo;trade, hotel and restaurant&rsquo; sector engaged about 28 per cent of the male workers, while in &lsquo;manufacturing&rsquo; nearly 24 per cent of the male workers were engaged. For urban females, &lsquo;other services&rsquo; sector accounted for the highest proportion (38 per cent) of workers, followed by manufacturing (28 per cent) and agriculture (15 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Considerable gender differentials in the wage rates (per day) for regular wage/salaried employees were observed. The average wage rate for regular wage/salaried employees, of age 15-59 years, in rural areas was 175.30 for males and Rs. 108.14 for females and in the urban areas, wage rate for males was Rs. 276.04 against Rs. 212.86 for females.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural areas, average male wage rate (of workers of age 15-59 years) for casual labour other than MGNREG public works was Rs. 76.02 and it was Rs. 70.66 for females.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">There was no gender differential in wage rate for casual labour in MGNREG public works, the wage rate (of workers of age 15-59 years) was nearly Rs. 79.00 for both rural male and rural female.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural sector, on an average, Rs. 66.59 was earned in a day by a male casual labourer (of age 15-59 years) engaged in casual labours other than public works, whereas a female casual labourer earned Rs. 48.41 a day &ndash; showing a difference of about Rs. 18. In the urban areas, a male casual labourer engaged in works other than public works earned Rs. 86.58 in a day and a female, Rs. 51.34 in a day.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>C. Unemployment Rate</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">At the all-India level, unemployment rate was nearly 8 per cent in the current daily status approach. The unemployment rate stood at nearly 4 per cent in current weekly status approach and 2 per cent in the usual status approach, i.e., in usual (adjusted.).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the rural areas, female unemployment rate stood at 8 per cent in current daily status compared to 9 per cent for males while in the urban areas, female unemployment rate in the current daily status was nearly 10 for cent which was 3 percentage point higher compared to male unemployment rate.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>D. Underemployment</strong></span></span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of usually employed males (ps+ss) who are found to be not employed (unemployed+not in the labour force) during the week preceding the date of survey (current weekly status) was 4 per cent in the rural and 2 per cent in the urban areas. The proportion of usually employed females (ps+ss) not employed (unemployed+ not in the labour force) during the week preceding the date of survey was as high as 19 per cent in the rural and 7 per cent in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of person-days without work (unemployed+ not in the labour force) of the usually employed (ps+ss) was about 36 per cent and 19 per cent for females in rural and urban areas respectively as against 11 per cent and 5 per cent for males in rural and urban areas respectively.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of person-days on which persons with some work during the reference week (according to the current weekly status) were without work (unemployed+not in the labour force) was about 7 for rural males, 21 per rural females, 3 for urban males and 12 for urban females.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><span style="font-size:small">Note:<br />
<br />
Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is obtained by dividing the number of persons in the labour force by total population<br />
<br />
Usual Principal Status: The labour force is typically measured through the usual principal activity status (UPS) which reflects the status of an individual over a reference period of one year. Thus, a person is classified as belonging to labour force, if s/he had been either working or looking for work during longer part of the 365 days preceding the survey. The UPS measure excludes from the labour force all those who are employed and/or unemployed for a total of less than six months. Thus persons who work intermittently, either because of the pattern of work in the household farm or enterprise or due to economic compulsions and other reasons, would not be included in the labour force unless their days at work and unemployment totalled over half the reference year.<br />
<br />
Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status: The Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status (UPSS) concept was introduced to widen the UPS concept to include even those who were outside the labour force on the basis of the majority time criterion but had been employed during some part of the year on a usual basis. In the NSS 61st Round Survey, all those who were either un-employed or out of labour force but had worked for at least 30 days over the reference year were treated as subsidiary status workers. UPSS is thus a hybrid concept incorporating both the major time criterion and priority to work status.<br />
<br />
The UPSS measure was used on the ground that it was stable and inclusive: it related to a picture emerging from a long reference period, and even persons working for 30 days or more, but not working for the major part of the year, were included. However, those outside the UPS labour force, seeking or available for work for more than 30 days during the preceding 365 days, were not included in the UPSS labour force.<br />
<br />
Current Weekly Status: The concept of Current Weekly Status (CWS) has been in use in the labour force surveys in India even before 1970, when the recommendations of the Dantwala Committee became available. It was primarily because the agencies like International Labour Organization (ILO) use estimates of employment and unemployment rates based on weekly reference period for international comparisons. Under CWS, a person is classified to be in labour force, if s/he has either worked or is seeking and/ or available for work at least one hour during the reference period of one week preceding the date of survey. The CWS participation rates also relate to persons and hence may be roughly compared with those obtained by using UPS and UPSS measurements. However, the reference periods are different and UPS, unlike UPSS and CWS, is based on majority time and does not accord priority to work and unemployment.<br />
<br />
Current Daily Status: The Dantwala Committee proposed the use of Current Daily Status (CDS) rates for studying intensity of work. These are computed on the basis of the information on employment and unemployment recorded for the 14 half days of the reference week. The employment statuses during the seven days are recorded in terms of half or full intensities. An hour or more but less than four hours is taken as half intensity and four hours or more is taken as full intensity. An advantage of this approach was that it was based on more complete information; it embodied the time utilisation, and did not accord priority to labour force over outside the labour force or work over unemployment, except in marginal cases. A disadvantage was that it related to person-days, not persons.</span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"><span style="font-size:small">**page**</span><br />
<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The [inside]Annual Report to the people of India on Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment, July, 2010[/inside], (</span><a href="http://labour.nic.in/Report_to_People.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://labour.nic.in/Report_to_People.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">) follows a macro framework for analysing emerging employment and labour market situations during the next 5 to 10 years. The report is based mainly on secondary sources of data. Demographic information is obtained from Census of India and information on labour market is based on the employment and unemployment surveys conducted by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). According to the report:</span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Based on the 2004-05 NSSO survey, the estimates of total employment in the country varies from 385 million (as per CDS measure) to 459 million (as per UPSS measure).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall assessment of employment situation based on UPSS in the country over relatively two longer periods, i.e.,1983 to 1993-94 (Period I-10.5 years) and 1993-94 to 2004-05 (Period II- 11 years) suggests that employment growth in period I was 2.06% per annum as against 1.87% in the period II.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment estimates for 2004-05 varied from 10.8 million (as per usual status - widely referred to as &bdquo;open unemployment&acirc;&euro;&Yuml;) to 35 million (as per daily status which includes both open unemployment and underemployment).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Analysis of unemployment data for the year 2004-05 reveals that unemployment rates are very high in urban areas, particularly, in the age group of 15-24 years. Female unemployment rate in the age group of 20-24 years is the highest at approximately 27%. Among males, the highest unemployment rate is reported in the 15-19 years age group both in rural as well as urban areas. However, in the 20-24 years age group, male unemployment rates are 12% and 16% in rural and urban areas respectively. Overall, in rural areas unemployment among youth (age 15-24 years) is approximately 12 to 15%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Based on the employment elasticity with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) observed during the period 1994-2005, the employment for 2009-10 is estimated to be 506 million with an average annual growth rate of 1.97% for the period 2004-05 to 2009-2010. The labour force for 2009-10 is estimated to be 520 million.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In India, bulk of the employment (approximately 57%) falls in the category of self employed. Approximately 60% of the rural labour force and 45% of the urban labour force is self-employed.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In 2004-05, average casual wage for males and females was just Rs. 55 and Rs. 35 respectively in rural areas and Rs. 75 and Rs. 44 respectively in urban areas.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Gender bias in casual wage payment is low in rural areas (0.63) than in urban areas (0.58).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">About 96% of female employment is in the unorganised sector as against about 91% of males. In urban areas, the percentage of unorganised sector workers is close to 65-70%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Approximately 22% workers were estimated to be below the poverty line in 2004-05. This essentially implies that out of a total of 459.1 million workers (UPSS) in 2004-05 approximately about 102 million were poor.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural areas, agriculture constitutes up to 68% of the total rural employment. Approximately 81% female workers and 66% male workers in rural areas are engaged in agriculture.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Although diversification of the female workforce to non-farm activities in rural areas has been limited up to 2 to 3% since 1993-94, the same in case of male workers has been to the extent of 7 to 8% during the same period.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Although over the years, incidence of child labour in the country has declined from around 5% in 1993-94 to approximately 3% in 2004-05, children continue to form a sizeable section of labour force in several fields of employment. Currently, total magnitude of child labour in India is estimated to be approximately 10 million. States like Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi etc. are having relatively higher concentration of child labour.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Census projection report shows that the proportion of population in the working age group (15-59 years) is likely to increase from approximately 58% in 2001 to more than 64% by 2021. In absolute numbers, there will be approximately 63.5 million new entrants to the working age group of 15-59 years between 2011 and 2016. Bulk of this increase in the population is likely to take place in relatively younger age group of 20-35 years. Such a trend would make India as one of the youngest nations in the world.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In 2004-05, the estimates of total labour force in the country varied from nearly 420 millions (as per Current Daily Status-CDS) to nearly 470 million (as per Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status-UPSS). The difference between the two estimates essentially arises because the lower estimate of 420 million does not capture those persons who join labour market for short periods of time.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Only 25 to 30% women in rural and 15 to 18% in urban areas participate in labour market. One of the reasons of low participation of women in labour force is the non-recognition of a number of women centric works as economic activities (such as cooking, collection of fuel and fodder, house and utensils cleaning etc.). Moreover, variety of social and family related constraints compel women to confine themselves to household activities at their prime working age. Early exit of women (probably post marital age) from labour market is particularly reflected in urban areas where women face inadequate social and family support system.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Employment and Unemployment Situation in India 2005-06[/inside], National Sample Survey 62nd Round:</span><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Compared to 1993-94, during 2005-06, unemployment rates in terms of the usual principal status, increased by nearly 1 percentage point, except that for females in urban areas, where they remained virtually unchanged. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2004-2005 and 2005-06, work participation rate (WPR) in the usual status approach in rural areas, remained unchanged at 55 per cent for males and it decreased by about 2 percentage points for females, from 33 per cent to 31 per cent. In urban areas, WPR decreased by about 1 percentage point for males and about 3 percentage points for females. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Among rural males, the proportion of self-employed had fallen from 61 per cent in 1983 to 57 percent in 2005-06.&nbsp; On the other hand for females, the proportion remained at the level of 1983 (62 per cent) in 2005-06. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Distinct gender differential in usual status WPR was observed: 55 per cent for males and 31 per cent for females in the rural areas, and 54 per cent for males and 14 per cent for females in the urban areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of person-days without work of the usually employed was about 35 per cent and 18 per cent for females in rural and urban India, respectively as against 11 and 5 per cent for males in rural and urban India, respectively </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In rural India, there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of males engaged in &lsquo;secondary sector (including mining and quarrying)&rsquo; &ndash; from 10 per cent in 1983 to 17 percent in 2005-06 for males and 7 per cent to 12 per cent for females. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Among the persons of age 15 years and above in the rural areas, only 5 per cent got work, 7 per cent sought but did not get work and nearly 88 per cent did not even seek work in public works. For males, nearly 6 per cent got work, 8 per cent sought but did not get work and 85 per cent did not seek work in public works. The corresponding figures for females were, 3, 6 and 91 respectively.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of persons who got work in public works decreased with the increase in the MPCE (monthly per capita expenditure) for both males and females. The proportion in the top MPCE class (Rs. 690 and above) for males was only about one-fifth of that in the bottom MPCE class (less than Rs. 320) &ndash; nearly 9 per cent in the bottom MPCE class and nearly 2 per cent in the top MPCE class. For females this ratio was about one-fourth &ndash; nearly 4 per cent in the bottom MPCE class and nearly 1 per cent in the top MPCE class.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The average number of days worked in public works, during the last 365 days, by males and females was almost the same- 17 for males and 18 for females. The maximum number of days worked, for males, was in the top MPCE class (Rs. 690 and above) &ndash; 24 days during the last 365 days. For females maximum number of days worked was in the MPCE class (Rs. 510 &ndash; Rs. 690) -&nbsp; 23 days during the last 365 days. </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">&nbsp;<br />
<br />
According to [inside]Women in labour markets: Measuring progress and identifying challenges, March 2010[/inside], International Labour Office, Geneva,</span><br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_123835.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_123835.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">:<br />
<br />
<strong>Labour utilization</strong> </span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The overall picture of the global capacity to tap the productive potential of its people is one in which nearly half (48.4 per cent) of the productive potential of the female population remains unutilized (compared to 22.3 per cent for men).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 1980 and 2008, the rate of female labour force participation rate (LFPR) increased from 50.2 to 51.7 per cent while the male rate decreased slightly from 82.0 to 77.7 per cent. As a result, the gender gap in labour force participation rates has narrowed slightly from 32 to 26 percentage points.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Of all people employed in the world, 40 per cent are women. This share has not changed over the last ten years.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The share of women above the working age (15 years and over in most countries) who are employed (the employment-to-population ratio) was 48.0 per cent in 2009 compared to a male employment-to-population ratio (EPR) of 72.8 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In absolute numbers, worldwide there were equal numbers of women and men above the age of 15 years in 2009 (2.5 billion of each), but among these only 1.2 billion women were employed as opposed to 1.8 billion men.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">More than six in ten women remain economically inactive in three regions: South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Labour underutilization</strong> </span></span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall, there is not a significant difference between the sexes when it comes to global unemployment rates but the female rate is consistently slightly higher than the male. The female unemployment rate in 2009 was 7.0 per cent compared to the male rate of 6.3 percent. Also at the country level, the majority of countries have higher unemployment rates for females than males (113 countries out of 152) and 30 countries showed female rates that exceeded male rates by more than 5 percentage points. </span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Female employment: Where and how women work</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The share of women in wage and salaried work grew during the last ten years from 42.8 per cent in 1999 to 47.3 per cent in 2009 whereas the share of vulnerable employment decreased from 55.9 to 51.2 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The shares of persons working in vulnerable employment are high for both sexes, especially in the world&rsquo;s poorest regions, but still higher for women than for men (51.2 per cent for women and 48.2 per cent for men in 2009).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Out of the total number of employed women in 2008, 37.1 per cent worked in agriculture and 46.9 per cent in services. Male sectoral shares in comparison were 33.1 per cent in agriculture and 40.4 per cent in services.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>The current economic crisis</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global female unemployment rate increased from 6.0 per cent in 2007 to 7.0 per cent in 2009, slightly more than the male rate which rose from 5.5 to 6.3 per cent. However, in four of nine regions &ndash; Developed Economies &amp; European Union, Central &amp; South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, East Asia and South-East Asia &amp; the Pacific &ndash; the male unemployment rates increased slightly more than the female rates over the same period.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Female unemployment rate increased from 14.4 to 15.0 per cent between 2007 and 2009 while the male rate remained constant at 7.7 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]Global Employment Trends by International Labour Organization (ILO), January 2010[/inside],</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_120471.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_elm/---trends/documents/publication/wcms_120471.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">:&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Developed Economies and European Union, Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, and Latin America and the Caribbean are estimated to have had negative growth rates in 2009, with the fall in annual growth rates between 2008 and 2009 exceptionally large in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS, at 11.0 percentage points. Only in East Asia and South Asia economic growth rates are estimated to have been 5 per cent or more in 2009. In 2007, all regions outside the Developed Economies and European Union recorded growth rates exceeding 5 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">On the basis of currently available labour market information and the most recent revisions in GDP growth, the global unemployment rate for 2009 is estimated at 6.6 per cent, with a confidence interval (CI) from 6.3 to 6.9 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The number of unemployed persons is estimated at 212 million in 2009, with a CI from 202 to 221 million. Based on the point estimate (212 million), this means an increase of almost 34 million over the number of unemployed in 2007, and most of this increase occurred in 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global employment-to-population rate (point estimate) dropped from 60.9 per cent in 2008 to 60.4 per cent in 2009, with a CI from 60.2 to 60.6 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The largest change in employment-topopulation rates occurred in the Developed Economies and the European Union (decrease by 1.8 percentage points), in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) &amp; CIS (minus 1.4 percentage points), and in Latin America and the Caribbean (minus 0.9 points), with more limited decreases in other regions.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The global employment growth rate was 0.7 per cent in 2009, less than half the growth rate of the working-age population of 1.5 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Growth in output per worker are negative in all regions except East Asia, South Asia and North Africa. The largest fall in output per worker occurred in Central and South-Eastern Europe (non- EU) &amp; CIS, minus 4.7 per cent (with a CI between -4.9 and -4.3 per cent), thus reversing part of the gains that were made in the first half of the decade.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Between 2008 and 2009, the unemployment rate for women increased by 0.8 percentage points and for men by 0.7 percentage points. This means that the gap in unemployment rates by sex increased slightly to 0.6 percentage points between 2008 and 2009, which is the same gap as ten years ago.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">On current estimates, the global youth unemployment rate rose by 1.3 percentage points from 12.1 per cent in 2008 to 13.4 per cent in 2009 (with a CI between 12.7 and 14.0 per cent).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Globally, youth labour force participation rate decreased by 3.4 percentage points between 1999 and 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The largest potential negative impact is in South Asia, South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where extreme working poverty may have increased by 9 percentage points or more in the worst case scenario. These estimates reflect that the fact that preceding the crisis, many workers were only just above the poverty line in these regions.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The regional unemployment rate in South Asia is estimated to have increased to 5.1 per cent in 2009, up from 4.8 per cent in 2008, but little changed from the rates registered between 2004 and 2007. Women face higher unemployment rates in the region, with a rate of 5.9 per cent in 2009 as compared with the male rate of 4.8 per cent. This is despite the fact that women participate to a much lesser extent in the labour market than men.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The South Asia region&rsquo;s youth unemployment rate is estimated at 10.7 per cent in 2009, up from 9.9 per cent in both 2008 and 2007.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">South Asia&rsquo;s unemployment rate is projected to decline slightly to 4.9 per cent in 2010, with a confidence interval of 4.6-5.3 per cent, as GDP growth is expected to edge higher to 6 per cent.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">While there has been much progress in extending social protection in the region through initiatives such as India&rsquo;s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which has provided a significant buffer during the crisis, helping to maintain levels of consumption, poverty and vulnerable forms of employment remain widespread and represent tremendous challenges that must be overcome.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">**page**</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">According to the [inside]National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector--NCEUS (2007)[/inside], Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, </span><a href="http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://nceus.gov.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf </span></a></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agricultural labourers, estimated at 8.7 crore in 2004-05, constituted 34 per cent of about 25.3 crore agricultural workers i.e., farmers and agricultural labourers.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment rate for agricultural labourers by the CDS (current daily status) is quite high in rural areas by any standard; 16 per cent for males and 17 per cent for females.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The underemployment of usual status agricultural labourers by CDS rates increased during the decade 1993/94-2004/05. In fact, the CDS unemployment rate was exceptionally high at 16 per cent in 2004-05.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is the only statutory legislation, which ensures minimum wages to agricultural workers. In 2004-05, about 91 per cent of the agricultural labour mandays received wage rates below the National Minimum Wage and about 64 per cent below the NCRL minimum wage norm in rural areas. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The total number of agricultural workers in India has been estimated at 25.9 crore as of 2004-05.&nbsp; They form 57 per cent of the workers in the total workforce. About 24.9 crore of them are in rural areas and that works out to be 73 per cent of the total rural workforce of 34.3 crore. Their share in total rural unorganised sector employment is 96 per cent while in unorganized agricultural sector it is 98 per cent.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Nearly two-thirds of the agricultural workers (64 per cent) are self-employed, or farmers as we call them, and the remaining, a little over one-third (36 per cent), wageworkers.&nbsp; Almost all these wage workers (98 per cent) are casual labourers. </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agricultural workers constituted 56.6 per cent of the total workers in 2004-05, down from 68.6 per cent in 1983. In rural areas, agricultural workers constituted 72.6 per cent of the total workers in 2004-05, down from 81.6 per cent in 1983.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Farmers form a major share within the agricultural workforce though there has been a gradual decline in their percentage from 63.5 in 1983 to 57.8 in 1999-00. Between 1999-00 and 2004-05, the percentage of cultivators increased to 64.2, the highest level achieved in 15 years&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A comparison of employment growth rates between 1983/1993-94 and 1993-94/2004-05 shows that the growth rate of agricultural employment decelerated sharply in the last decade, from 1.4 to 0.8 per cent. Although the growth of total employment also declined from 2.1 per cent during 1983/1993-94 to 1.9 per cent during 1993-94/2004-05, this deceleration was clearly not so sharp.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The proportion of households with no land possessed increased from 13 per cent in 1993-94 to 14.5 percent in 2004-05. The share of landlessness among the agricultural labourers was 19.7 per cent in 2004-05. More than 60 per cent of the agricultural labourers had sub-marginal holdings up to 0.4 hectares and that remained more or less constant over the period. Landlessness or small size of holdings forces the workers to engage as labourers to maintain their subsistence levels.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The [inside]India Labour Market Report 2008[/inside], which has been prepared by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and Adecco Institute, London,</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.macroscan.org/anl/may09/pdf/Indian_Labour.pdf"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">http://www.macroscan.org/anl/may09/pdf/Indian_Labour.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium"> show:<br />
<br />
<strong>Self-Employment&nbsp; </strong></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of self-employment varies between 30 to 70 % across states. It appears that self-employment is more prominent in less developed states as states such as Bihar (61%), Uttar Pradesh (69%), Rajasthan (70 %) have high proportion of self-employment. It is low in comparatively developed states like Kerala (42%), Delhi (38%) and Goa (34%).&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The patterns reveal that both male and female in self employed categories have similar demographic profile. Overall, it can be seen that across all the age categories, more rural people are engaged in self-employment than urban people.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Females with lower educational attainment are more in proportion than males in the self-employed category. Overall, it appears that the majority of the self-employed have low levels of education.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In terms of sectoral composition of the self employed, it can be seen that self employment is highest in agriculture, followed by trade. Together these activities constitute nearly three fourth of the total self-employed.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Casual Labour Market&nbsp; </strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">At the all-India level, as per the NSSO 62nd round survey estimates, around 31 % of employment is in the casual labour market and female participation in the casual labour market is more as compared to male.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The rate of absorption in the casual labour market starts to decline after 34 years, indicating that, workers with a demographic dividend have a higher rate of absorption in the casual labour market.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Participation in the casual labour market reduces with improved education across gender and region. Majority of the casual labour force, is either illiterate, or just have primary level of education.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Agriculture continues to be the main sector, where almost 70 % of the casual labour is absorbed, followed by the industry and service sector respectively. Comparatively developed states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Punjab have more casual labour in agriculture. Whereas in less developed states, like Rajastan, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttaranchal, the absorption of casual labour into the industry is high.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Within the industry, manufacturing is the main occupation for casual labour in many less developed states. Casual labour in construction also seems to be higher in predominately less developed states.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Population Not in Labour Force&nbsp;</strong> </span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Gender composition of persons not in labour force revels that the percentage of females is disproportionately higher as compared to males across regions.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The percentage of urban females not in labour force is higher than their rural counterparts. While in most states the percentage of rural females not in labour force is around 60-70%, the same figure for their urban counterparts is around 80%.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A high percentage of females, belonging to the age-group of 25 to 59, are out of labour force (47-57%), while the corresponding percentage for males is negligible (1-9%). Moreover, a significant percentage of females out of labour force also have high educational qualifications. As high as 68% graduate females are not in labour force, while the corresponding figures for male is only 13%. At the post-graduate level, percentage of females not in labour force is around 53% while it is only around 10% for males.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A huge proportion of females remain out of labour force due to domestic duties. Even in the working age-group of 25-59, the figure stands at around 60%. The figures are similar for both urban and rural females.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">State-wise distribution of persons who are not in labour force does not show much variation. The percentage figures are similar for males across states. However, there are significant variations among females not in labour force. The highest percentage of females not in labour force is in the Northern states of Delhi (92.10%) and Chattisgarh (89.50%), and the lowest is in the state of Himachal Pradesh (51.70%).&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The highest percentage (around 40%) of persons with disability is found within the males (higher in case of rural males), in the working age group of 25 to 60. A majority of this category is not literate.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify"><br />
<span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Unemployment and Underemployment</strong></span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Unemployment rates are higher for urban persons as compared to rural persons. Urban women have the highest unemployment rates at 9.22% and rural women have the lowest rates at 7.31%.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">A state wise analysis for unemployment trends reveals that comparatively developed states such as Goa and Kerala have the highest unemployment rates of 11.39% and 9.13% respectively. Whereas lowest unemployment rates of 0.48% and 0.77% are found in less developed states such as Uttaranchal and Chattisgarh.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Unemployment is highest for the age categories of 10 to 24 corroborating the view that youth unemployment is on the rise in India.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The unemployment rate is seen to increase, with an increase in educational attainment and is particularly high after the secondary level of education. Unemployment rate among educated females, in both urban and rural areas, is the highest.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Estimation of underemployment levels reveals that underemployment is widespread among females in general and rural females in particular.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Underemployment levels calculated across the employment status shows that self&ndash;employed and casual labour categories have the highest levels of underemployment. Among the regular wage/ salaried labour, underemployment is negligible.</span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Employment and unemployment in Emerging Sectors</strong> </span></span></p>

<ul>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In terms of employment in the emerging sector, a large number of people are employed in the retail sector, which includes both the organized and unorganized labour market (7.1%).</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Second largest labour market comprises the construction industry (5.9%). Almost 7.7 percent of the total male work force is employed in this industry. Nearly 8.7 percent of the urban and 5 percent of the rural workers are involved in this sector.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In the transport sector, 7.5 percent of the workers are males and only 0.1 percent are females, a pattern common to both the urban and rural segments in India</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Employment in the IT sector is non-existent in rural areas and it appears that these sectors are pro-urban since they need educated and highly skilled workers. The pattern of employment in the media and pharmaceutical sectors is predominantly urban, similar to that in the IT and software sectors.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The hospitality and health care sectors seem to provide more opportunities to women.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">In sectors like Mining, Textiles, Metals, Gems and Jewellery, Automobile, Transport and IT/BPO, the rate of decline in employment was at 1.01% for the period October &ndash; December 2008. It was lower at 0.74% in November 2008. However, the rate increased to 1.17% for January 2009.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">All sectors barring IT/BPO (business process outsourcing), show a negative rate of growth of employment for the period from October to December 2008. The maximum decline in employment was observed in the gems and jewellery industry. The IT/BPO sector that showed a positive employment trend in the October to December 2008 period, but the December 2008 to January 2009 reported a declining rate of -1.66%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">The overall rate for the December 2008 to January 2009 period was (-)1.17%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">For the period of October to December 2008, direct non manual workers experienced a decline in employment with the gems and jewellery industry accounting for the highest at 6.17%.</span></div>
	</li>
	<li>
	<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:medium">Overall, out of all the categories of direct and contract workers, manual contract workers experienced the highest unemployment while the non &ndash;manual contract workers show a gain in employment for the period of October to December 2008.&nbsp; </span></div>
	</li>
</ul>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>
',
	'credit_writer' => 'Rural Expert',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 8,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'unemployment-30',
	'meta_title' => '',
	'meta_keywords' => '',
	'meta_description' => '',
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 30,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$imgtag = false
$imgURL = '#'
$titleText = null
$descText = 'KEY TRENDS 

&nbsp;

&bull; In 2017-18,&nbsp;24.8&nbsp;percent&nbsp;of&nbsp;rural&nbsp;working-age men and 74.5 percent of rural&nbsp;working-age (viz. 15-59 years) women were not employed. In urban areas, 25.8 percent of working-age men and 80.2 percent of working-age women were not employed AB

&nbsp;

&bull; Both the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) and the Consumer Pyramids Survey of the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy (CMIE-CPDX) report the overall unemployment rate to be around 6 per cent in 2018,...'
$foundposition = false
$startp = (int) 0
$endp = (int) 200
preg_replace - [internal], line ??
include - APP/Template/SearchResult/index.ctp, line 35
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 880
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51