September Newsletter

REGULATORY UPDATES

1. Aadhaar authentication is not mandatory to avail ESI benefits 

The Ministry of Labour & Employment, through notification no. S.O.3792(E) dated 19th August 2025, has instructed the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to make Aadhaar authentication voluntary for beneficiaries. ESIC is now required to provide benefits even if an individual chooses not to use Aadhaar for verification. To support this change, alternative identity documents Passport, PAN Card or Driving License, must be accepted for availing ESIC benefits.

Key Amendments

1.Voluntary Aadhaar Authentication

• Earlier, Aadhaar was increasingly being pushed as a mandatory mode of identification.

• Now, beneficiaries have the option to refuse Aadhaar authentication without losing entitlement to ESIC benefits.

2. Alternate ID Proofs Recognized

• Passport, PAN Card and Driving License have been formally notified as substitutes for Aadhaar.

• This ensures wider accessibility for those who either do not have Aadhaar or prefer not to use it.

3. No Denial of Benefits

• ESIC cannot deny benefits on the grounds of refusal or inability to undergo Aadhaar authentication.

• This safeguards employees’ rights and ensures benefits reach the intended recipients without procedural barriers.

Implication

The notification is likely to make ESIC benefits more accessible, especially for workers who face difficulties with Aadhaar, such as migrants and those in the informal sector. It also ensures compliance with constitutional principles of choice and privacy, in line with past judicial directions. On the administrative side, ESIC will need to adapt its systems to handle alternate ID proofs, which may require additional training and process changes. Awareness among beneficiaries and employers will be critical to prevent wrongful denial of benefits. Over time, this change could also set a precedent for other welfare and social security schemes to move toward a more flexible, less Aadhaar-dependent framework.

2. EPFO further simplifies the JD functionality to enable Aadhaar correction

   
   

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), through circular no. WSU/MemberProfile/E-710137/2025-26/26 dated 13th August 2025, has simplified the online Joint Declaration (JD) functionality. This change is aimed at helping members who have not yet seeded or verified their Aadhaar or who need to correct Aadhaar-related details in their Universal Account Number (UAN).

Key Amendments

1.Mismatch Resolution

• If there is any mismatch in the fields of Name, Gender or Date of Birth between Aadhaar and UAN, the employer can now submit a rectification request directly through the JD functionality.

  
  

2. Correction of Linked Aadhaar

• In cases where the wrong Aadhaar has been erroneously linked to a UAN, the employer can input the correct Aadhaar number through the online JD system and forward it to the Regional Office (RO) for approval.

  
  

3. Manual Filing Option

• If the employer is unavailable or the establishment has ceased operations, members are permitted to file the JD manually.

• The circular also provides the prescribed JD format and lists the authorities empowered to attest such declarations.

  
  

Future Implications

This move is expected to streamline the process of Aadhaar seeding and corrections in UAN, reducing delays and disputes for members. By allowing employers to handle mismatches and Aadhaar corrections online, EPFO is cutting down on paperwork and speeding up rectifications. The option of manual filing gives relief to workers whose employers may no longer be accessible, ensuring they are not left stranded. Over time, these changes should improve data accuracy in EPFO records, reduce rejections in Aadhaar seeding and strengthen the portability and accessibility of provident fund benefits.

3. Conditions for employing women during the night shift and to operate 24/7 – Delhi

The Government of Delhi, vide notification no. F.No.28/Addl.LC/Exemp./S&E, Act/2021/2438 dated 7th August 2025, has amended Schedule I of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. The amendment grants exemption to all establishments in Delhi, except liquor shops, to operate 24/7 and to employ women during night shifts, subject to strict conditions relating to working hours, safety, wages and welfare.

Key Amendments

1.Permission for 24/7 Operations

• All establishments (except liquor shops) may now operate round the clock, provided they furnish required details and an undertaking to the Labour Department.

  
  

2. Working Hour Limits

• Maximum of 9 hours per day (including breaks) and 48 hours per week.

• No more than 5 hours of continuous work at a stretch.

• Overtime payable at double the normal rate.

  
  

3. Shift Regulations

• Shift patterns must ensure no employee is compelled to work only night shifts.

• Weekly offs to be given in rotation.

• Work on national holidays to attract compensatory leave plus double wages.

  
  

4. Safety and Security Measures

• Employers must provide transportation and safety arrangements for employees working late hours.

• CCTV recording to be maintained for at least one month and produced upon demand.

  
  

5. Welfare and Compliance

• Employers must ensure statutory benefits such as minimum wages, EPF, ESI, bonus and leave facilities.

• Payment of wages to be made through cheque or electronic mode.

• Basic amenities like washrooms and lockers to be provided.

6. Employment of Women in Night Shifts

7. Prior written consent of women employees is mandatory.

8. Internal Committee under the POSH Act, 2013 must be constituted and functional.

7.Other Conditions

• The exemption does not override any other notification, order or circular by government agencies.

• A copy of the notification must be displayed prominently at the employee entrance/exit.

Future Implications

This move significantly liberalizes Delhi’s retail and service economy by enabling 24/7 operations, bringing it closer to a “city that never sleeps” model. While it offers flexibility for businesses and convenience for consumers, it also places a strong compliance burden on employers, especially regarding employee welfare, workplace safety and women’s night-shift employment. Companies will need to invest in robust systems for transportation, security and HR compliance to lawfully avail the exemption. Over time, this could boost employment opportunities, particularly in retail, IT services and hospitality, while also increasing regulatory scrutiny to ensure worker protection.

4. Minimum wages effective from July 2025 – Maharashtra

The Government of Maharashtra, vide notification no. RuralDevelopment/MWRules/Special allowance/2025(2)/office-10/8008 dated 4th August 2025, has published the minimum wages applicable to employees working in Shops and Commercial Establishments across the state. The rates will remain in effect from 1st July 2025 to 31st December 2025. The notification clarifies that there is no revision in the special allowance and the same rates effective since January 2025 will continue during this period.

Key Highlights

• Coverage Period – The notified wage rates apply from 1st July 2025 to 31st December 2025.

• No Change in Special Allowance – Special allowance remains unchanged, maintaining continuity in wage structures.

• Applicability – The notification covers employees working in Shops and Commercial Establishments across three zones in Maharashtra.

• Components of Wages – The notified wages are divided into Basic, Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) and House Rent Allowance (HRA).

Future Implications

Since the special allowance remains unchanged, employers can expect stability in wage outflow for this half-year. For employees, the absence of an upward revision means no additional increase in take-home pay compared to the previous six months. Businesses, especially in retail and commercial sectors, should ensure compliance with these wage rates to avoid penalties under the Minimum Wages Act. Going forward, stakeholders should watch for possible revisions in the next cycle (effective January 2026), which may reflect inflationary adjustments.

NOTABLE JUDGEMENTS

Dharam Singh v. State of UP

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh v. State of UP ruled that refusing to grant permanent status to long-serving workers violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

Daily wagers had been working at the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (UPHESC) since 1989–1992. Even after decades of continuous service, their request for regularization was turned down by the state government, citing financial constraints. The High Court also dismissed their plea, reasoning that they were only daily-wage employees, there were no rules in UPHESC for regularization and no sanctioned posts were available.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, striking down the state’s refusal as arbitrary and unjustified. It stressed that reliance on outsourcing and temporary arrangements cannot replace fair and secure public employment. The Court directed that Dharam Singh and the other workers be granted regular employment, effective from April 24, 2000.

The judgment strengthens the rights of contractual and daily-wage employees, ensuring that long years of service cannot be ignored on technical grounds. It discourages governments from perpetuating temporary employment to avoid regularization and may prompt states to review staffing policies. The ruling could also influence future claims by similarly placed workers, expanding the scope of regularization and reinforcing fair employment practices in public institutions.

Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Company

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Company held that provisions in social security laws with a common purpose must be read harmoniously. A watchman’s family was initially granted compensation under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 after his death in a commuting accident, but the Bombay High Court set aside the award.

The Supreme Court restored the compensation, holding that the phrase “arisen out of and in the course of employment” under the EC Act should be interpreted in line with Section 51E of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, which treats commuting accidents as work-related.

The ruling strengthens worker protection by expanding compensation to commuting accidents, increases employer and insurer liability and reinforces a welfare-oriented approach to interpreting labour laws.

Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board held that the cancellation of certain internal appointments in the Board was unjustified. It ruled that the posts in question were sanctioned, the employees were eligible and their appointments, though procedurally irregular, were not illegal. The Court restored their service with continuity, seniority and notional benefits, while denying back wages on the principle of “no work, no pay.”

The case arose after three employees were appointed as Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant through an internal selection in 2009. An enquiry later revealed that the appointments exceeded the sanctioned strength, leading to their cancellation. The High Court upheld this cancellation, but the Supreme Court found that the posts were within cadre strength, the candidates were validly selected and cancelling all appointments en masse without individual scrutiny was contrary to natural justice.

Looking ahead, the ruling clarifies the crucial difference between irregular and illegal appointments. It discourages blanket annulment of recruitment batches and directs authorities to apply the doctrine of severability, saving valid appointments even when some are flawed. This strengthens fairness in service matters and shields employees from losing jobs due to procedural lapses beyond their control.

K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda held that if a preliminary inquiry report is relied upon in the inquiry proceedings, it must be furnished to the delinquent employee. The Court clarified that while a chargesheet once served makes the preliminary report ordinarily irrelevant, reliance on it without disclosure violates natural justice. The Court quashed the dismissal order against the appellant, holding that the punishment imposed was legally unsustainable and directed limited gratuity benefits in lieu of full retirement dues.

The case involved a senior officer of Vijaya Bank (later merged with Bank of Baroda), accused of irregularities in approving temporary overdrafts in 1999. Disciplinary proceedings continued even after his superannuation in 2006, ultimately leading to dismissal. His challenge succeeded before a Single Judge but failed in appeal before the High Court, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. The Court found that the inquiry officer failed to provide the preliminary report or examine the witnesses relied on and that punishment was altered based on the CVC’s recommendation without disclosure to the employee.

Going forward, the judgment strengthens safeguards in disciplinary proceedings. It reiterates that preliminary inquiry material cannot be used behind the back of an employee and any reliance on such material requires full disclosure and opportunity of cross-examination. It also discourages changing penalties without transparency. This ruling reinforces natural justice as a non-negotiable element in service law, curbing arbitrary practices in internal inquiries

A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. disposed of contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with its earlier order directing Punjab National Bank (successor to Nedungadi Bank) to release outstanding dues. The Court held that while the Bank delayed compliance well beyond the three-month timeline, the delay was not wilful or contumacious so as to constitute contempt. It rejected the claim for pensionary benefits, as no such relief had been granted earlier, but directed the Bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the widow of the deceased employee in view of the prolonged delay in disbursal of retirement dues.

The matter arose after A.K. Jayaprakash, dismissed in 1985, successfully challenged his dismissal before the Labour Commissioner and later the Madras High Court, which reinstated him with 60% back wages. The Supreme Court in 2018 affirmed these orders and directed payment of outstanding dues within three months. Despite this, payments towards salary arrears, gratuity and provident fund were released only between 2019 and 2023. Following his death, his legal representatives pursued contempt, alleging wilful disobedience and seeking additional benefits.

Looking ahead, the judgment clarifies that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to claim new substantive reliefs not part of the original directions. It also emphasizes that while administrative delays may excuse wilfulness, prolonged non-compliance with court orders can still warrant compensatory relief to affected parties. This signals that courts will balance strict enforcement of directions with fairness, ensuring employees or their families are not left uncompensated after decades of litigation.

Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Const. Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. upheld disciplinary action against a CISF constable. The Court affirmed that members of a disciplined force are held to a higher standard of conduct and misconduct that causes public disturbance or damages institutional reputation will attract proportionate penalties. It dismissed the appeal, holding that the modified penalty of a one-stage reduction in pay for two years was fair and legally sustainable.

The case stemmed from an incident in 1995, when Constable Amar Singh was granted a two-hour out-pass to visit a hospital but was instead found 12 kms away in a civilian residential colony. Local residents detained him until his superiors intervened. An inquiry established that while he had formal permission to leave camp, he misused it for unrelated purposes, creating a public disturbance and bringing disrepute to the CISF. The Appellate Authority reduced the original harsh penalty to a two-year pay reduction, which was later upheld by the Delhi High Court.

The judgment underscores that courts will not interfere in disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of natural justice or statutory procedure. It also reinforces that disciplinary standards for armed and paramilitary forces are stringent, with conduct outside duty hours also falling under scrutiny when it affects the force’s credibility. This ruling serves as a reminder that judicial review under Article 136 is exercised sparingly and will not convert the Supreme Court into a second court of appeal on factual matters.

State of Punjab v. Ex. Constable Satpal Singh

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ex. Constable Satpal Singh set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had reinstated a dismissed constable, Satpal Singh. It held that his prolonged unauthorised absence from duty amounted to the gravest act of misconduct under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Since the punishment was based on this single act, there was no requirement to consider his past service record or pensionary claim. The Court restored the order of dismissal, emphasising that habitual absenteeism cannot be condoned in a disciplined force.

The case arose when Satpal Singh, serving in the Commando Battalion, overstayed his sanctioned leave in 1994 and remained absent for 37 days. A departmental inquiry found him guilty, leading to his dismissal in 1996. His appeals failed, but the High Court later reinstated him, reasoning that the disciplinary authority had wrongly relied on record without notice and failed to consider the length of his service. The Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that the misconduct itself justified dismissal.

This ruling makes clear that in police and paramilitary services, unauthorised absence will be treated as a serious breach of discipline warranting dismissal, even without reference to past record. It signals that courts will show restraint in interfering with disciplinary penalties where misconduct undermines force discipline, ensuring consistency and accountability in service law.

President, Visakha Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union v. The Management, The Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam and Anr.

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in President, Visakha Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union v. The Management, The Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam and Anr. dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2006 Industrial Tribunal award. The Court held that once “all-inclusive” minimum wages are prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, they form a single package and cannot be dissected to preserve customary allowances like HRA or conveyance. Since the employees were already earning above the statutory minimum, the union’s claim was unsustainable.

The dispute began in 2002 when the government referred the issue of whether hotel employees were entitled to minimum wages while continuing to receive long-standing allowances separately. The union argued that HRA and conveyance had been paid for over a decade and should not be merged, but the management maintained that wages already exceeded statutory minima. The Tribunal found that the notified minimum wage structure was all-inclusive and that workers had no independent right to retain customary allowances once the package exceeded statutory limits.

This ruling reinforces the principle that minimum wage notifications under the Act provide a complete wage package, leaving no scope for employees to carve out additional customary payments unless justified by collective bargaining or statutory mandate. It underscores judicial reluctance to interfere in wage structuring where statutory compliance is met and signals that disputes over “customary” allowances must be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India upheld an award directing the Bank to ensure payment of allowances such as gun, special and conveyance to contract staff deployed exclusively in its operations. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that stopping these allowances without following Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act amounted to an illegal change in service conditions and further affirmed that liability could be fastened on the Bank under Section 21(4) of the CLRA Act. The writ petition was dismissed and the award was ordered to be implemented with interest.

The dispute began with a 2015 reference by the Ministry of Labour after allowances historically paid to security and other contractual personnel were withdrawn. The Tribunal’s 2024 award held both contractors and HDFC Bank responsible for arrears, with the Bank empowered to recover from contractors. The Bank resisted, arguing a lack of direct employment relationship and that Section 9A did not apply, but the Court found that service conditions were determined by the Bank itself and that the workers served only its operations.

The judgment underscores that principal employers cannot distance themselves from responsibility when contract labour is engaged solely for their benefit. Any unilateral restructuring of service conditions will attract scrutiny under the Industrial Disputes Act and liability under the CLRA Act ensures that workers’ dues remain secure even if routed through contractors. The ruling sends a clear signal of heightened accountability for principal employers in managing their extended workforce.

J.Alexander v State of Kerala

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in J.Alexander v State of Kerala stated that long-serving employees of the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes sought regularisation of their services. The Court noted that their initial appointments in the mid-1990s were not in accordance with sanctioned posts or proper recruitment procedures and later amendments mandated that appointments be routed through the Public Service Commission. While earlier Industrial Tribunal and High Court orders had protected their reinstatement with partial back wages, the present claim for regularisation was rejected. The Court held that the petitioners could not bypass the statutory recruitment process or claim parity with others who had been regularised under separate government orders.

The facts go back to 1995-96, when the corporation engaged several daily wage staff, including the petitioners. They were later selected by an internal board after special rules were framed in 1997. In 2000, their services were terminated, leading to an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal in 2003 directed reinstatement with 50% back wages, which was upheld in successive rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government regularised about 58 similarly placed employees in 2014 and two more later, but not the petitioners.

Their demand for similar treatment was opposed by the corporation on the ground that they were not recruited through proper procedure and subsequent special rules required PSC recruitment. The Labour Court declined their plea for regularisation and that decision was challenged here.

The Court’s ruling underscores that judicial protection against wrongful termination does not automatically translate into a right to regularisation. Even long years of service or favourable awards cannot override statutory recruitment rules. The case signals that claims based on equity or comparison with others will face resistance unless backed by proper selection in line with special rules. Going forward, employees in government corporations and public sector bodies will need to rely on transparent, rule-based entry, as courts are reluctant to expand regularisation beyond what the law or policy explicitly provides.

INTERNATIONAL UPDATES

Thai Senate, ILO Push for Stronger Labour Standards

On 20 August 2025, the Thai Senate Standing Committee on Labour and its Sub-committee on Labour Protection and Welfare met with the ILO Country Office in Bangkok to advance labour rights discussions. The focus was on ILO Conventions 87 (Freedom of Association) and 98 (Collective Bargaining), both central to empowering workers and fostering fair labour relations. The meeting underlined Thailand’s intent to align its laws with global standards, strengthen enforcement and promote decent work.

Key Changes Discussed

• Possible ratification of Conventions 87 and 98, ensuring workers’ and employers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively.

• Legal reforms to harmonize national labour laws with international norms.

• Stronger enforcement mechanisms for protecting workers’ rights in practice.

• Encouraging social dialogue among workers, employers and the government.

  
  

Ratifying the conventions would greatly expand protections for Thai workers, particularly in sectors where union representation is weak. It would foster fairer and more stable workplace relations, boosting productivity while reducing conflict. Thailand’s global reputation would also be enhanced, strengthening its competitiveness and positioning it as a country committed to labour rights. In the long run, these changes would support sustainable development by ensuring growth that is inclusive, equitable and respectful of workers’ dignity.

Lao PDR Launches Initiative to End Child Labour and Workplace Discrimination

On 14 August 2025, Lao PDR launched the project “Promoting Trade in Lao PDR by Eliminating Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Child Labour”, running until February 2028. Backed by the ILO and Canada, the initiative tackles child labour impacting more than 172,000 children, many in hazardous trade sectors through awareness campaigns, enforcement tools, better monitoring and training for officials, inspectors and unions.

Key Changes Introduced

• Child labour focus: Targeted measures to eliminate child labour in trade-related sectors, including stronger laws, inspections and accountability.

• Workplace reforms: Addressing discrimination, violence and harassment by enhancing social dialogue and pushing for labour law amendments.

• Capacity building: Strengthening government agencies, employers’ groups and unions to create fair and inclusive workplaces.

  
  

The initiative is expected to protect vulnerable children from exploitation while ensuring safer working conditions for all workers. It also positions Lao PDR as a more responsible and competitive trading partner by aligning national practices with international labour standards. In doing so, the project advances SDG 8 (Decent Work) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), striking a balance between economic growth and social inclusion. Most importantly, it lays the foundation for long-term safeguards that will benefit future generations by embedding dignity, equality and fairness into the country’s labour market.

China Issues New Supreme Court Interpretation on Labor Disputes

China’s Supreme People’s Court released Interpretation II on labor dispute cases, effective September 1, 2025. It replaces earlier interpretations, updates employment law to reflect current practices and aims to unify inconsistent rulings across regions.

Key highlights include:

• Identifying Employers: Courts will recognize the entity that signed a written contract. Without one, factors like wage payments and management control will determine the employer.

• Expatriate Workers: A “positive list” clarifies when foreign nationals can have recognized employment relationships, easing enforcement but increasing risks for companies.

• Representative Offices: These and foreign parent companies can now be named in disputes, raising liability exposure.

• Double Salary Penalty: Employees may claim monthly penalties for lack of written contracts, with certain exemptions.

• Contract Rules: Clarifies when consecutive fixed-term contracts must convert to open-ended ones, blocking employer bad-faith tactics.

• Service Period & Noncompete: Employers can recover training costs and enforce reasonable noncompete clauses, including liquidated damages during employment.

• Wrongful Termination: Sets stricter limits on when reinstatement can be denied, strengthening protections for older workers and narrowing employer defenses.

• Reinstatement Pay: Employees are entitled to back pay; courts may reduce it if employees share fault.

• Social Insurance: Waivers are invalid; failure to enroll employees allows lawful termination with severance and retroactive contributions.

  
  

Interpretation II strengthens employee protections, clarifies employer obligations and standardizes dispute resolution. Employers should reassess HR policies and compliance practices to avoid new risks.

Zambia Strengthens MSME Role in Green Economy

From 26–28 August 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security’s National Productivity Development Department and the ILO held a capacity enhancement meeting in Chipata under the UN JSDG Fund Project “Accelerating the Adoption and Deployment of Renewable Energy Technologies in Zambia.” The project, implemented by the ILO, UNDP and UNICEF, runs through 2025.

The training brought together officials from labour, SME development, provincial planning and TEVET institutions to boost MSME productivity, innovation and competitiveness, with a focus on renewable energy. Participants highlighted the programme’s impact:

• Labour officials committed to helping MSMEs drive Zambia’s green economy.

• Trainers gained tools to teach renewable energy more effectively.

• SME officers saw renewable energy as a catalyst for inclusive growth.

• Planners emphasized joint strategies, new tracking tools and links between carbon credits and social benefits.

  
  

The initiative aligns with Zambia’s National Green Growth Strategy 2024–2030, supporting universal clean energy access by 2030 and advancing carbon reduction commitments. It reinforces MSMEs’ role as engines of sustainable energy, job creation and community resilience.

ILO and NRNA Join Forces to Improve Safe and Decent Work for Nepali Migrants

Labour migration plays a vital role in Nepal’s economy but exposes many workers to unsafe conditions, limited protection and psychosocial stress abroad. To strengthen support systems, ILO Nepal, under the MiRiDeW Project Phase II with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, signed a nine-month implementation agreement (Sept 2025–May 2026) with the Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA).

Key Highlights

• Focus on strengthening NRNA’s institutional capacity in major destination countries, particularly in the Middle East and Malaysia.

• Capacity building of National Coordination Councils to provide structured, sustainable services.

• Policy advocacy with the Government of Nepal and stakeholders on migrant rights.

• Provision of mental health and psychosocial support, especially for women and undocumented workers.

• Improved coordination between NRNA representatives and Nepali diplomatic missions to deliver timely, reliable support.

• Builds on successful collaboration during COVID-19 when both organizations assisted stranded migrants.

Implications

This partnership is expected to create stronger institutional mechanisms to protect migrant workers’ rights and welfare. By improving services, enhancing advocacy and embedding psychosocial support, the initiative will help migrants work with dignity and safety abroad. It also reinforces Nepal’s broader commitment to fair and decent work, while aligning with ILO’s global agenda for safer, well-governed migration systems.