In brief, the budget is worse to such an extent that even government supported Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) – which is part of the RSS family as the ruling BJP – had to categorically say that it “neglects labour and social security issues”. BMS says the budget proposal remain “growth-centric but worker-deficient”. BMS has also expressed serious dissatisfaction over the absence of relief for Scheme Workers, EPS – 95 pensioners, unorganized sector labourers, gig workers and government employees. BMS has also noted the proposed notification of Labour Codes and formation of high-level committee on banking sector reforms and “Education to Employment and Enterprise” and said reforms without adequate worker safeguards will only deepen insecurity and informalization.

BMS is also skeptic about the emphasis laid in the budget on labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, fisheries, MSMEs, tourism, healthcare, AYUSH, animal husbandry and the creative (AVGC) sector, along with initiatives like Samarth 2.0 and MSME liquidity, and says they may generate employment, but employment without adequate wages, security, and social protection, the growth and development can’t be termed inclusive development.

This stance of the BMS is significant, at a time when the joint platform of 10 Central Trade Unions (CTUs) has already announced all India strike on February 12, against the proposed implementation of the Labour Codes and other anti-worker pro-corporate policies of the government. CTUs have termed the budget anti-worker and pro-corporate.

The Union Budget 2026-27 approaches employment largely as a by-product of capital expenditure and industrial growth, rather than as a rights-based economic objective. It avoids the harder questions of wage security, social protection, rural distress, and informal labour rights.

Of course, the budget clearly emphasized job creation as a priority, acknowledging the need to create more work opportunities for the country’s ever increasing working population that is likely to peak by 2030. That is why it aims to spur employment through supporting labour intensive industries such as textiles, tourism, healthcare, and hospitality. It also has provisions of skilling programmes for caregivers, tourist guides, and other service segments linked the economy’s growth areas. New funds and schemes target MSMEs and manufacturing clusters, which are significant employers outside formal corporate jogs. There is also a major integrated programme for textiles, handlooms, and village industries that is designed to support employment and skills in traditional and rural industries. Budget also seeks to indirectly create more employment across supply chains and construction by boosting public investment (capex) in infrastructure, manufacturing, and logistics.

Nevertheless, many important things are missing from the budget, while many other concerns are inadequately addressed. It has replaced the rural employment guarantee MGNREGA with the VB – G RAM G, that has done away with the right to get work on demand. Additionally, VB – G RAM G gets only Rs95,692.31 crore, while increasing the workdays from 100 to 125. The allotment is insufficient since, to provide 125 days of work the government would need to allocate Rs2.3 lakh crore. Since G RAM G is not yet notified MGNREGA scheme has been given Rs30,000 crore. Revised Estimate shows Rs88,000 crore for the MGNREGA in 2025-26. The fund starved states are not to share 40 per cent of the cost under G RAM G. All these means that rural workers will be on mercy of the government. Beyond the G RM G, rural and agricultural labours were completely overlooked. There is no significant relief or support structures in the budget.

The Central Trade Unions including government supported BMS have highlighted that longstanding demands were ignored. There is no increase in honorarium or minimum wage for Anganwadi, ASHA, and Mid-Day meal workers. EPF pension benefits and thresholds were left untouched. EPF and ESI coverage wage limit remains the same, limiting social protection.

There is no dedicated or comprehensive social security fund for the unorganized workforce, though they are above 90 per cent of the country’s total workforce.

As for minimum wage and wage security, the budget is only big on words. It talks about labour-intensive growth, but it does not strengthen wage standards or statutory job security. It will pave the way for further exploitation of the workers.

On the job creation front, focus is on jobs through sectoral support and MSMEs, but there is no strong direct creation guarantee. For rural employment it theoretically gives guarantee of 125 days without sufficient funds, and putting 40 per cent burden on fund starved states. On labour welfare there are general incentives for stilling, but no wage security, pension, or strengthened social protection. Unorganised workers are mentioned through broader programmes, but there is not dedicated social security fund. For inclusive work, a committee on jobs and AI is announced, but no targeted support for disability or vulnerable workers.

The budged relied on indirect job creation strategy via higher capex, MSME credit, support, and incentives for labour-intensive industries, skilling and reskilling linked to industry needs. However, there is not employment-linked incentives with enforceable job numbers. There are no reforms in EPF minimum pension, and ESI wage ceiling. There is also no protection against contractualization and hire-and-fire practices. Labour code implementation may make it worse.

The budged does generic reference to MSMEs and self-employment expressed reliance on existing portals or digital framework such as e-Shram. However, there is no social security fund; no statutory framework of gig and platform workers or home-based domestic workers; no health insurance, pension, or accident cover expansion; and no minimum income or wage assurance.

Budget resorts to rhetoric on women-led development and their skilling in care economy. Nevertheless, there is no wage revision for ASHA, Anganwadi, Mid-Day mean workers: No recognition as “workers”; no pension or gratuity; and not maternity or social protection expansion.

For youth, budget has skill-oriented programmes, such as apprenticeship and service-sector training. However, there is no solution to educated unemployment or jobless growth; no unemployment allowance, and not public-sector hiring roadmap.

The budget does not reform the minimum wages, ignores collective bargaining, leaves job security unaddressed, keep silence on worker’s safeguard in the event of implementation of labour codes, and no check on contract labour and outsourcing abuse.

The budget leaves structural gaps, such as no rights-based framework for workforce; fiscal gaps, such as underfunding the schemes; and democratic gaps, such as ignoring the workers and their unions by not treating them as stakeholders. It has treated the workforce, only as a growth input, not equal human partner in the economic activities of the country. Budget 2026-27 is a humiliation for the workforce. (IPA Service)