Despite the fact that attempts to provide reservation in jobs for local workers have been proven unconstitutional and have been rejected by courts, the temptation to pander to nativist sentiments remains among State governments. A case in point is the draft Karnataka State Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries, Factories and Other Establishments Bill, 2024, cleared by the Congress government’s cabinet but later “temporarily withheld” following an uproar from industry heads and trade bodies in Karnataka. The Bill envisaged that industries and other establishments would appoint local candidates in 50% of management positions and 70% of non-management positions, and set stringent criteria for defining local candidates. Similar Bills were passed in Andhra Pradesh in 2019, Haryana in 2020, and Jharkhand in 2023. While the Karnataka Bill added proficiency in Kannada as one of the criteria to define eligibility of a local candidate, the Haryana and Andhra Pradesh laws were largely based on residency criterion. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Haryana Act in 2023 holding it violative of equality guaranteed under Article 14 and freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. It added that the Act went against the rights of citizens from the rest of the country and that States enacting such laws could set up “artificial walls” throughout India. The Andhra Pradesh Act is still being heard in court, while the Jharkhand Bill has not been implemented. Apart from the aforementioned reasons, the Karnataka Bill is also violative of Article 16(3) that allows for reservation based on residence, but limits it to public employment and to be enforced only by a law made in Parliament and not by a State Legislature.
The temptation for the Karnataka government to come up with Bills that provide for reservation for locals and labour protectionism despite their proven unconstitutionality is perhaps motivated by the fact that there is resentment among resident workers in better-off States that their jobs are being taken over by migrant workers. This is especially so among those aspiring for jobs in the private sector, where some employers have sought to exploit migrant workers to work for longer hours and at lower pay without benefits or social protections and without political support that is otherwise available to local workers. If Karnataka is concerned about this segmentation of the labour market that pits the migrant worker against the locals, it should enforce labour rights for the former as well; and by curbing exploitative practices, it could create a level playing field for all workers. Protectionism for the local worker and parochialism is not the answer.
