Introduction

Why the “4-Day Workweek” Became a Trending Topic

The idea of a 4-day workweek captured national attention when the Central Government released draft rules under the new Labour Codes in 2021. News outlets quickly reported that India was “shifting to a 4-day week,” leading many to believe that working days would reduce while salaries remained unchanged. The debate intensified when officials stated that employers could restructure working hours as long as the weekly limit of 48 hours was respected. This created the impression that India was moving toward a modern, flexible work model similar to experiments in the UK, Europe, and Japan.

However, the concept was widely misunderstood. The Labour Codes do not reduce weekly working hours, nor do they mandate a shorter workweek. Instead, they introduce a framework for greater flexibility, allowing organisations to distribute working hours differently across the week.

What the New Labour Codes Actually Changed

India’s old labour laws—mainly the Factories Act, Shops and Establishments Acts, and various sectoral regulations—fixed daily working hours around 8–9 hours, with limited flexibility. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020 modernised this structure by allowing employers to adjust daily working hours, while keeping the weekly cap constant.

The Codes aim to create a uniform system across sectors by granting employers the ability to choose between:

• traditional 6-day or 5-day schedules
• compressed workweeks (fewer days, longer shifts)
• flexible working arrangements

But this flexibility must operate within strict boundaries related to weekly hours, spread-over, overtime, and worker consent.

The Core Question: Did India Legally Approve a 4-Day Workweek?

The direct answer is: No, India has not legally mandated a 4-day workweek. However: Yes, the Labour Codes allow the option of a 4-day workweek, subject to conditions. The government has clarified that employers may adopt a 4-day schedule if:

• each working day has proportionately longer hours,
• the total weekly duration does not exceed 48 hours, and
• compulsory rest days (three in this case) are provided.

This means the new framework enables a compressed workweek, not a reduced-hours workweek. The number of working days may decrease, but the total hours remain the same. For many workers, this raises concerns about 10–12 hour days and increased fatigue. For employers, it offers operational flexibility.

The following sections analyse these provisions in detail and explain what the law truly allows.

Understanding the Legal Basis

The 48-Hour Weekly Limit

The foundation of any discussion on a 4-day workweek lies in the statutory weekly cap. Across the new labour codes—particularly the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (OSH Code) and the Code on Wages—the overarching rule remains unchanged.

An employee cannot be required to work more than 48 hours in a week. This limit serves as the legal ceiling on total weekly working time, irrespective of how many days an employee actually works. All flexibility granted under the Codes must function within this rigid boundary.

Flexibility under the OSH Code

The OSH Code introduces the concept of “flexible work arrangements”, allowing employers to structure working hours in different patterns as long as statutory safeguards—rest intervals, spread-over limits, and weekly holidays—are observed.

Crucially, the Code empowers governments to frame rules that permit compressing the 48-hour week into fewer days, thus enabling the possibility of a 4-day workweek. This marks a significant shift from colonial-era labour laws, which were more rigid about daily limits.

How Daily Working Hours Can Be Restructured

The Codes do not reduce total working hours; they simply allow redistribution. This means employers may structure the 48 hours across 4, 5, or 6 days, depending on operational needs.
 
For example:

• 4 days × 12 hours = 48 hours
• 5 days × 9.6 hours = 48 hours
• 6 days × 8 hours = 48 hours

The law permits such restructuring, provided mandatory rest breaks are included and workers are not compelled to work beyond the permissible daily or weekly limits without overtime compensation.

Distinguishing Between Reduced Days and Extended Shifts

A common misunderstanding is treating a 4-day workweek as a reduction in work. In India’s legal framework, it is only a reduction in the number of working days, not in total hours.
A true 4-day workweek—like the 32-hour models tested globally—requires lowering weekly limits. The new labour codes do not do this. Instead, they allow extended shifts spread over fewer days while keeping weekly work constant.

Therefore, the Indian model is best understood as a compressed work schedule, not a reduced-hours week.

What the New Codes Actually Permit

Option for a 4-Day Workweek with Longer Shifts

Under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSH) Code, 2020, employers are allowed to restructure the work schedule as long as the weekly cap of 48 hours is not breached. This flexibility opens the door to a 4-day workweek, but with a crucial condition:

• Daily working hours will increase proportionately.

If an organisation wants employees to work only 4 days a week, the daily shift may extend to 10–12 hours, depending on the interpretation of spread-over, breaks, and overtime limits. The law does not reduce total weekly hours—it only allows a different distribution of them.

This means India’s model is compressed, not shortened. You work fewer days, but for longer hours each day.

Requirement of 3 Weekly Offs

If a worker completes the statutory weekly limit within four days, the remaining days automatically become weekly holidays.

For example:

• 4 working days × 12 hours = 48-hour week
• Remaining 3 days = mandatory off

However, these offs are not additional paid holidays granted by the Code. They arise because the worker has already completed their weekly quota. Thus, the Code does not “give” extra holidays — it only recognises the rearrangement of hours.

Spread-Over Rules and Mandatory Rest Intervals

A major factor limiting very long shifts is the concept of spread-over — the maximum time span between when a shift starts and ends, including breaks. Under the draft OSH rules:

• Spread-over cannot exceed 12 hours per day (in most cases).
• Workers must receive rest intervals after 5 hours of continuous work.
• At least 30 minutes of rest must be provided.
• Spread-over can be increased up to 12 hours only with government approval.

This means:

• You can’t have a 14–15 hour long day even if work time is 11–12 hours.
• The entire shift, including breaks, must finish within the spread-over ceiling.

Whether Employers Can Introduce It Unilaterally

The Labour Codes do not empower employers to force a 4-day workweek. 

Important points:

• The government has stated that worker consent is necessary for compressed schedules.
• Draft rules require consultation with works committees or employee representatives where applicable.
• Any major change in working conditions may fall under “change in service conditions” under the Industrial Relations Code, requiring notice in certain establishments.
• States may impose additional restrictions under their rules.

Therefore:

• Employers cannot introduce a 4-day week unilaterally as a mandatory schedule.
• It must be mutually agreed, documented, and applied cautiously to avoid violation of service norms or claims of forced overtime.

Does a 4-Day Workweek Mean 12-Hour Shifts?

Legal Explanation (Daily Limit vs Weekly Limit)

The Codes maintain the traditional 48-hour week but remove the rigid daily cap of 8–9 hours. As long as:

• weekly hours ≤ 48
• daily spread-over ≤ 12
• overtime rules are respected

An employer can legally structure a 4-day week.

The key principle is: The daily limit is flexible, the weekly limit is not.

Whether a 12-Hour Working Day Is Allowed

A 12-hour working day is allowed only in certain situations, and with conditions:

• The OSH Code itself does not explicitly permit 12 hours of work,
• But draft rules allow a 12-hour spread-over, not 12 hours of actual work.
• Actual working hours (excluding breaks) generally cannot exceed 10.5–11 hours without triggering overtime.

Thus:

• A pure 12-hour workday is usually not allowed unless part of it counts as overtime.
• A 10–11 hour workday is possible within the spread-over limit.

If employers want 12 full hours of work, they must:

• Pay overtime for hours beyond the normal daily working limit, and
• Obtain employee consent.

Mandatory Overtime and Consent Requirements

Overtime rules under the Codes require:

• Double wages for overtime.
• Consent of the worker.
• Maximum overtime capped (usually 125–144 hours per quarter depending on state rules).

This means:

• A 12-hour workday cannot be imposed as standard.
• If the “extra” hours are not paid at overtime rates, the arrangement becomes illegal.
• Consent is essential — no worker can be punished for refusing overtime.

Where Breaks Fit Into the Calculation

Breaks are counted differently:

• Rest intervals do not count as working hours.
• But they do count toward the spread-over limit.

Example:

• 10.5 hours of work and 1 hour of breaks
• = 11.5 hours spread-over (allowed)

But:

• 11 hours work and 1.5 hours breaks
• = 12.5 hours spread-over (not allowed without special approval)

Thus, the practical ceiling is often 10–11 hours of actual work. In short, the 4-day week is legally possible, but its practical implementation depends heavily on spread-over ceilings, mandatory breaks, overtime limits, and worker consent.

Employer Perspective: Why Some Companies Prefer It

Productivity Advantages

Many organisations see a compressed 4-day workweek as an opportunity to increase productivity without expanding weekly hours. Longer continuous work blocks allow teams to:

• Complete tasks that require deep focus
• Reduce daily start–stop inefficiencies
• Minimise time lost in coordination, transitions, and meetings

International studies also suggest that a well-implemented compressed week can lead to higher output per hour, especially in industries where uninterrupted workflow matters.

Matching Global Production Cycles

For companies tied to global supply chains—especially in manufacturing, textiles, logistics, and IT services—a 4-day schedule helps align with:

• Overseas client timelines
• Weekly demand cycles
• Cross-border project windows

A compressed schedule allows them to intensify production during peak global demand while maintaining compliance with the weekly hour limit.

Flexibility in Scheduling

The Labour Codes were introduced to provide greater operational flexibility, and the 4-day structure fits well into that goal. Employers benefit because they can:

• Plan shifts more efficiently
• Reduce disruptions in weekly operations
• Manage labour availability during high-pressure cycles

For industries with shift-based systems, a 4-day week simplifies scheduling, especially when combined with rotational off-days and seasonal demand surges.

Reduced Absenteeism and Operating Costs

A compressed week can reduce absenteeism because workers get more consecutive rest days, which can improve morale and reduce mid-week leave requests.

On the employer's side, fewer working days mean cost savings in:

• Electricity
• Canteen and welfare facilities
• Transport services
• Administrative overhead

Industries with large campuses or factory floors see the greatest gains. The Codes’ flexibility allows employers to optimise operations without breaching statutory limits.

Worker Perspective: Concerns and Fears

Fatigue and Health Issues

The most significant concern is longer daily shifts. A 10–12-hour workday, even if legal under spread-over limits, can:

• Increase fatigue
• Reduce mental alertness
• Elevate the risk of workplace accidents
• Trigger health issues such as sleep deprivation, stress, and musculoskeletal problems

Workers fear that while the week becomes shorter, each working day becomes physically and mentally taxing.

Work-Life Balance

A compressed schedule may reduce the number of working days but also compresses personal time on those days. Workers worry about:

• No time for family on working days
• Difficulty managing childcare, elder care, and domestic responsibilities
• Reduced social interaction
• Late returns home due to extended shifts

The promise of “3 days off” may not offset the intensity of long shifts, especially for low-income or manual labour workers.

Hidden Increase in Daily Working Time

Workers fear that the move to a 4-day week may be used to:

• Normalize 12-hour days
• Reduce overtime payments by merging overtime into the standard schedule
• Extend shift hours without adequate compensation

There is also anxiety that employers may misuse the flexibility by pushing the daily working time to the legal limit of spread-over without regard to safety and welfare.

Fear of Wage Cuts or Loss of Overtime

A shorter workweek does not mean reduced weekly hours, but workers worry that employers may:

• Reduce wages citing reduced “working days”
• Eliminate overtime opportunities (which many low-wage workers rely on)
• Restructure shifts to reduce labour costs

For many families, overtime is not optional income—it is essential. Losing it could significantly impact household budgets. Workers also fear that refusal to consent to compressed schedules may lead to retaliation or job insecurity, even though the law requires voluntary acceptance.

International Comparison

4-Day Workweek Experiments in the UK, Europe, Japan

Several countries have piloted true four-day workweeks (i.e., reduction of total weekly hours while keeping pay stable) or broader experiments in compressed work patterns:

• United Kingdom: Large-scale pilots (2021–2023) funded by non-profits and employers tested a 4-day week with reduced total hours (e.g., 32 hours) on full pay. Early reports showed mixed but promising results on productivity and well-being; participation was voluntary and tightly monitored.
• Europe: Firms in Spain, Iceland and parts of Scandinavia experimented with reduced-hours schemes, often subsidised or trialled through social-partnership agreements. Many pilots emphasised shorter total hours rather than simply compressing the same hours into fewer days.
• Japan: High-profile corporate trials — notably Microsoft Japan (2019) — tested a 4-day week by closing offices on Fridays. Results indicated productivity gains, but the model was more of a discretionary corporate policy than a national reform.

These international pilots typically combined reduced total hours, careful measurement of productivity and worker welfare, and voluntary employer participation. They were experimental, time-bound, and often accompanied by policy supports (research, subsidies, collective bargaining).

The Global Trend Toward Flexible Weeks

Globally, two clear strands exist:

1. Reduced-hours pilots: Aim to shorten total weekly hours (e.g., from 40 to 32) while preserving pay — policy-driven or employer-led with social-partner backing.
2. Compressed workweeks / flexible scheduling: Maintain total weekly hours but redistribute them (e.g., 4×10, 4×12) to suit operational needs.

Western experiments increasingly favour reduced hours with maintained pay as a route to wellbeing and productivity gains; developing-economy approaches more often favour compressing hours to maintain output and employment levels.

How India’s Model Differs from Western “Reduced-Hours” Models

India’s new Codes (and the policy discourse around them) align with the compressed-week strand rather than the reduced-hours strand. Key differences:

• Total hours unchanged: International reduced-hours pilots cut weekly hours; India’s Codes keep the 48-hour weekly cap and permit redistribution within it.
• Rule-driven vs pilot-driven: Western pilots are experimental, evaluated and often temporary; India’s reform is legislative—granting statutory flexibility with state rule-making.
• Scale and informality: Western experiments often involve formally organised firms with high union/HR capacity. India must reckon with a massive informal sector, where enforcement and voluntary uptake are far harder.
• Safeguards and social supports: Many Western pilots were accompanied by monitoring, welfare supports and negotiated trade-offs; Indian implementation relies heavily on state rules, employer compliance, and labour inspections, which are uneven.

In short, India is enabling operational flexibility to boost competitiveness; western reduced-hours models aim primarily at worker wellbeing backed by policy supports and empirical evaluation.

State-Level Reality

Why the 4-Day Workweek Has Not Been Implemented Widely

Although the Codes permit compressed weeks, widespread, uniform implementation is constrained by several factors:

• No automatic change: The OSH Code requires state notifications or employer-worker agreements for alternate schedules. Without these, defaults (8–9 hour days across 5–6 days) persist.
• Diverse state priorities: States differ in industrial structure, labour capacity and political stance; many have not finalised rules.
• Sectoral suitability: Sectors reliant on continuous processes, retail footfall or client service may find compressed weeks operationally difficult.

Need for State Rules to Activate the Provision

The Codes devolve much of the day-to-day rule-making to States and to sectoral regulators. That means:

• State rules must define spread-over ceilings, rest intervals, overtime caps, consent procedures and sectoral exceptions.
• Without clear rules, employers risk legal exposure if they unilaterally adopt compressed weeks.
• Uniform national practice therefore requires a coordinated wave of state notifications — which is not yet in place in most states.

Resistance from Employers or Trade Unions

Both sides have reasons to be cautious:

• Employers in some sectors resist because of logistics (continuous production, customer service) or fears about reliability and cost (if pay stays the same but shifts need retooling). Some smaller firms worry about added scheduling complexity.
• Trade unions often oppose compressed weeks that lengthen daily hours, citing fatigue, safety and erosion of overtime income. Unions demand stronger statutory safeguards and binding consultation before changes.

This friction slows voluntary adoption and compels many firms to wait for clearer rules or collective agreements.

Practical Challenges in Execution

Implementing a 4-day (compressed) week raises concrete challenges:

• Rostering & continuity: Rotational coverage, overlap for handovers, and managing customer-facing hours require sophisticated scheduling.
• Transport & childcare: Extended daily hours change commute peaks and childcare needs; public services and private arrangements may not adapt easily.
• Wage and overtime accounting: Payroll systems must differentiate standard hours, overtime hours, and allowances without error.
• Safety & fatigue management: Industries must introduce fatigue-mitigation measures (short breaks, medical checks, rest facilities).
• Enforcement capacity: Labour inspectorates must monitor spread-over, consent records and overtime payments — a major task in states with limited staffing.

Bottom Line on Ground Reality

The law authorises a 4-day compressed model, but it does not ensure its safe, equitable, or widespread adoption. Until states issue clear rules, employers and workers negotiate case-by-case, experiments remain limited, and many practical hurdles (scheduling, enforcement, welfare supports) must be addressed for any meaningful roll-out.

Government’s Justification

Modernising Labour Laws

The central government argues that the new labour codes are designed to update India’s outdated labour framework, which was previously scattered across 29 separate laws. By consolidating these laws, the government aims to create a modern, streamlined legal structure. The option of a 4-day workweek is presented as part of this modernization, promoting global-standard workplace flexibility rather than a rigid one-size-fits-all system.

Giving Flexibility to Employers and Workers

A key justification is the flexibility offered to both sides. Employers get the freedom to structure workdays based on operational requirements, while employees theoretically gain more weekly rest days. The government emphasises that the 4-day model is optional, not mandatory, and should be implemented only when mutually agreed upon. The intention is to promote diverse work arrangements instead of forcing everyone into a traditional 6-day format.

Improving Ease of Doing Business

The government also highlights that more flexible work schedules improve India’s attractiveness as a business destination. Many global companies operate across time zones and require adaptable staffing patterns. The ability to adjust working days and shift lengths, within legal limits, is intended to help companies improve efficiency and reduce compliance burdens.

Attracting Foreign Investment

By providing flexible labour structures aligned with global standards, India aims to appear more investor-friendly. Countries with adaptable labour regulations are often preferred by multinational corporations. The government believes that allowing innovative workweek models signals that India is ready to support modern workplace systems, thereby encouraging foreign companies to establish or expand operations.

Major Criticisms

Longer Daily Hours = Higher Burnout 

Critics argue that although the weekly working hours remain capped at 48, compressing them into four days may result in excessively long daily shifts. This can lead to fatigue, stress, and health risks, especially in physically demanding jobs. Worker unions warn that longer shifts may reduce productivity toward the end of the day and increase the likelihood of workplace accidents.

Not a True 4-Day Workweek (No Reduction in Total Hours)

In many Western models, a 4-day workweek means fewer hours overall—often 32 hours instead of 40. India’s model is different: it keeps the total weekly hours the same. As a result, critics say it is misleading to call it a “4-day workweek,” because workers are not actually receiving less work. Instead, they merely work more hours per day and get an extra weekly off, which does not benefit everyone equally.

Risk of Misuse in Unregulated Sectors

In sectors where monitoring is weak—such as informal labour, small manufacturing units, hospitality, and construction—there is concern that employers may force longer workdays without offering additional rest or overtime pay. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, workers may be pressured into accepting 12-hour days without any real choice.

Enforcement and Monitoring Weaknesses

Even though the codes contain limits on maximum daily hours, rest intervals, and overtime, India’s labour enforcement machinery remains understaffed and inconsistent across states. Critics argue that unless monitoring improves, the flexibility offered by the new codes might actually become a loophole for exploitation. Many believe that the focus should have been on reducing total working hours and improving enforcement, rather than merely restructuring the workweek.

Conclusion

Is the 4-Day Workweek Real or a Misinterpreted Concept?

The idea of a 4-day workweek under the new labour codes is real, but it is widely misunderstood. The codes do not promise fewer working hours or a Western-style 32-hour week. Instead, they only allow redistribution of the existing 48-hour weekly limit into fewer working days. This creates the possibility of a 4-day week, but only by increasing the daily hours—something many workers may not prefer or be able to endure. Therefore, the 4-day workweek in India remains more of a flexibility provision, not a reduction in work.

What the Law Permits vs What Workers Expect

The law permits longer daily shifts, more weekly offs, and alternative scheduling patterns, provided the weekly hour limit is respected and rest intervals are maintained. However, workers often interpret the concept as a shorter workweek with reduced time obligations—similar to models tested in Europe and Japan. This mismatch between legal reality and public expectation is the primary source of confusion. The law aims at flexibility, but workers hope for relief. Without reducing total weekly hours, many workers feel the 4-day promise does not translate into a genuine improvement.

Why India Needs Clear Guidelines Before Implementation

Before widespread adoption, India needs more clarity and safeguards:

• Clear state-level rules to activate the 4-day workweek option.
• Strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent misuse in vulnerable sectors.
• Detailed guidelines on overtime consent, rest intervals, and shift caps.
• Consultation with trade unions and industry bodies to ensure balanced implementation.
• Awareness campaigns so workers and employers understand what is permitted and what is not.

Without such clarity, the model risks becoming a tool for extended working hours rather than a genuine improvement in work-life balance. A well-structured framework is essential to ensure that flexibility does not silently become exploitation.