Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. The Factories Act, 1881 was passed with a view to fix the wages of industrial workers and to allow the workers to form trade unions. 2. N.M. Lokhande was a pioneer in organizing the labour movement in British India. Which of the above statements is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is option B (Statement 2 only).
**Statement 1 is incorrect.** The Factories Act was meant to ensure adequate safety measures and promote health and welfare of the workers employed in factories as well as to prevent haphazard growth of factories.[1] The earliest regulations, such as the Factories Act of 1881, were introduced to control working conditions.[2] The Act did not fix wages or provide for trade union formation. The right to form trade unions was expressly recognized by The Trade Unions Act 1926[3], not by the Factories Act of 1881.
**Statement 2 is correct.** N.M. Lokhanday of Bombay raised their voice for protecting the interests of the industrial labourers.[4] He was indeed a pioneer in organizing the labour movement in British India, working specifically to improve the conditions of factory workers in Bombay during the late 19th century.
Sources- [1] https://kile.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Moneyveena.pdf
- [3] https://kile.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Moneyveena.pdf
- [4] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 3: Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement > 3.7 Rise of Labour Movement > p. 38
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Anachronism Trap'. UPSC took a 19th-century Act (1881) and attributed 20th-century socialist features (wage fixing, trade unions) to it. Statement 2 is a standard fact from Spectrum/NCERT. The strategy is to memorize the 'Primary Objective' of landmark Acts, not just their names.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Factories Act, 1881 in British India aim to fix the wages of industrial workers?
- Statement 2: Did the Factories Act, 1881 in British India include provisions allowing industrial workers to form trade unions?
- Statement 3: Was N. M. Lokhande (Narayan Meghaji Lokhande) a pioneer in organizing the labour movement in British India?
- Directly states the object of the Factories Act is to ensure safety, health and welfare of workers and to improve working conditions.
- Focus on safety/working conditions implies the Act's purpose was regulatory/protective rather than wage-fixing.
- Describes the Act's object as authorising restrictions and protections for the benefit of workers.
- Emphasises extension of protections rather than measures about fixing wages.
Lists the substantive provisions of the Indian Factory Act, 1881 — child labour limits, working hours for children, holidays, and machinery fencing — with no mention of wages.
A student could infer the Act's focus was on welfare/safety and check contemporaneous sources or the Act text to see whether wage-fixation was absent.
Describes the 1891 Act's regulation of hours and safety, notes men's hours were left unregulated, and explicitly contrasts the Acts' coverage with plantation exemptions — again no wages addressed.
A student could use this pattern (Acts regulating hours/safety but not wages) to hypothesize that earlier acts like 1881 likewise did not set wages and then verify via primary law texts.
Gives typical 19th-century factory conditions and cites extremely low wages (Rs.4–20/month) while describing legislation dealing with labour conditions, implying social concern focused on hours/safety rather than wage rates.
Knowing wages were a separate socio-economic problem, a student could cross-check whether wage regulation was legislated then or left unaddressed until later reforms.
Notes some Indian leaders did not support the Factory Acts (1881, 1891) because they feared effects on Indian industries' competitiveness — indicating the Acts imposed regulatory burdens rather than redistributive wage-fixing.
A student could use this political reaction to infer the Acts imposed operational regulations (hours/conditions) and then seek evidence whether wage controls were politically contested or absent.
States that India introduced formal minimum wages much later (Minimum Wages Act, 1948), showing that statutory wage fixation as a legal instrument belonged to a later period.
A student can contrast the known date of formal minimum-wage legislation (1948) with 1881 to infer that the 1881 Act likely did not aim to fix wages, and then verify by reading the 1881 Act.
- Directly references the Factories Act, 1881 and describes it as regulating working hours and conditions.
- Says trade unions and more protective legislation emerged over time, implying union recognition was a later development.
- States that the right to form trade unions is expressly recognized by the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
- By pointing to 1926 as the express recognition, it indicates that earlier factory legislation (e.g., 1881) did not provide that recognition.
- Discusses the evolution of Factories Acts in British India and notes modelling after later Acts (1891 and 1911).
- The focus on later Factory Acts (1891, 1911) rather than union provisions in 1881 supports the view that union formation was not part of the 1881 Act.
Explicit summary of the Indian Factory Act, 1881 shows its primary focus was child labour, working hours and machinery safety—not on collective labour organisation.
A student could note this substantive focus and check whether laws addressing collective bargaining or union recognition are mentioned in the same era (they are not in this snippet).
Describes early workers' initiatives (workingmen's club, local efforts) and opposition to the Factory Acts, indicating labour organising existed but separately and was fragmented.
One could infer organised trade-union activity was emergent and localized, so formal legal recognition in a 1881 factory statute would be unlikely without evidence of a national union law.
States the first Trade Union in India (AITUC) was founded in 1920, indicating formal trade-union organisation at national level post-dates 1881.
Compare the 1881 Act date with the emergence of national trade unions (1920) to suspect that 1881 Act probably did not create legal provisions for unions.
Lists the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as a later, dedicated statute governing trade unions—implying separate legislation was used to regulate unions rather than the 1881 Factory Act.
A student could use the existence of a specific 1926 Trade Unions Act to argue that formal legal recognition/regulation of unions was addressed later, not in 1881.
Notes later Factory Acts (e.g., 1891) addressed working hours and holidays and that Acts excluded plantations—again showing Factory Acts focused on labour conditions, not union rights.
Use the pattern that Factory Acts regulated hours, holidays and safety to infer they were regulatory labour-condition laws, making it less likely they contained provisions enabling collective organisation.
- Snippet explicitly names N.M. Lokhanday as one of the leaders who raised their voice to protect industrial labourers.
- Places him alongside other early labour activists (Sorabjee Shapoorji, Sasipada Banerjee), implying a pioneering role in the labour movement.
- Connects his activity to the emergence of factory workers and early organisation of labour, showing relevance to labour mobilisation.
- Describes the broader milieu of early labour organising and names contemporaries (Sorabjee, Sasipada) who undertook pioneering efforts.
- Provides context on early, localised philanthropic and legislative attempts to improve workers' conditions, framing Lokhande's role within pioneering initiatives.
- [THE VERDICT]: Standard Question. Covered in Spectrum (Chapter: The Movement of the Working Class) and Old NCERT (Bipan Chandra).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Evolution of Labour Laws & Working Class Movement in British India (1881–1947).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the timeline: 1881 Act (Child labor focus, 7-12 yrs age); 1891 Act (Weekly holiday, women's hours); 1926 Trade Unions Act (Legal recognition of unions); 1948 Minimum Wages Act (Wage fixing). N.M. Lokhande: Founded 'Bombay Mill Hands Association' (1890), editor of 'Deen Bandhu'.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Apply the 'Colonial Intent Filter'. The British passed early Acts primarily to satisfy pressure from Lancashire textile rivals (who wanted to reduce Indian competitiveness) or for basic humanitarian optics (child labor). They had zero intent to 'fix wages' or empower 'unions' in 1881.
Evidence shows the 1881 Act primarily addressed child labour and related working conditions, not wage fixation.
High-yield for UPSC: distinguishes the primary objectives of early colonial labour legislation (protection/safety and child labour limits) from later wage-related laws. Useful for questions on legislative intent and the evolution of labour policy; helps situate later Acts (e.g., Minimum Wages Act, 1948) in chronology.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 27: Survey of British Policies in India > Labour Legislations > p. 534
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 32: The Movement of the Working Class > 586 ✫ A Brief History of Modern India > p. 586
References indicate selective application and limits (e.g., exclusions of tea/coffee plantations; men's working hours left unregulated).
Important for argument-based answers: demonstrates the partial and uneven nature of colonial reforms, linking labour law limitations to broader economic/political priorities of the Raj. Helps answer questions comparing statutory intent versus on-ground impact.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Hostility to Educated Indians > p. 163
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Hostility to Educated Indians > p. 162
The sources list concrete measures in 1881 (age limits, child working hours, fencing hazardous machinery) and further changes in 1891.
High factual utility for UPSC: useful in chronology and scheme-type questions asking what specific reforms successive Factory Acts introduced. Enables comparative questions (1881 vs 1891 vs later labour codes) and supports evidence-based evaluation of policy effectiveness.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 27: Survey of British Policies in India > Labour Legislations > p. 534
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Hostility to Educated Indians > p. 163
References describe the 1881 Act as primarily addressing child labour, working hours for children, and machinery fencing rather than industrial organisation.
High-yield for UPSC: helps answer questions on the aims and limitations of early colonial labour legislation and trace continuity to later reforms. Connects to social reform, labour history, and legislative evolution; useful for comparative and cause–effect questions on labour policy.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 27: Survey of British Policies in India > Labour Legislations > p. 534
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Hostility to Educated Indians > p. 163
Evidence shows formal trade union activity and legislation (AITUC 1920; Trade Unions Act 1926) occurring decades after 1881.
Essential for UPSC: mastering the timeline clarifies when workers' organisations emerged versus when protective legislation first appeared. Links labour movement to the broader freedom movement and later labour laws; enables timeline-based and policy-development questions.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 86: Pressure Groups > fl i Trade Unions > p. 602
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 115
Sources note opposition to the Factory Acts, limited scope (e.g., exclusions like plantations), and reservations by Indian owners about labour laws.
Important for UPSC answers evaluating effectiveness of colonial policies: explains why industrial unrest and organised labour grew despite early Acts. Connects to economic interests, regional variations, and later legislative expansions—useful for analytical essays and structured answers.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 32: The Movement of the Working Class > 586 ✫ A Brief History of Modern India > p. 586
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Hostility to Educated Indians > p. 163
The references list N.M. Lokhande alongside Sorabjee Shapoorji and Sasipada Banerjee as leaders who raised their voice for factory workers, directly addressing who led early labour organising.
High-yield for UPSC: questions often ask for identification and roles of early social and labour leaders. Understanding this cluster helps answer causes, key personalities, and continuity to later labour politics; connect to labour legislation and nationalist politics. Learn by mapping leaders to regions and their specific contributions.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 3: Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement > 3.7 Rise of Labour Movement > p. 38
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 32: The Movement of the Working Class > 586 ✫ A Brief History of Modern India > p. 586
N.M. Lokhande was not just a labour leader; he was a prominent associate of Jyotiba Phule and a member of the Satyashodhak Samaj. His journal 'Deen Bandhu' was the mouthpiece of the Satyashodhak Samaj. Expect a question linking Labour Movement to the Non-Brahmin Movement.
Use 'Ideological Chronology'. 1881 was the peak era of Victorian Laissez-faire capitalism. A colonial government 'fixing wages' (a welfare state intervention) in 1881 is historically impossible. Wage regulation requires a massive administrative machinery that didn't exist then. Eliminate Statement 1 immediately.
Mains GS1 (History/Society): Analyze how the early Indian labour movement was initially philanthropic (Lokhande, S.S. Bengalee) and only later became political/nationalist (Lala Lajpat Rai, AITUC 1920). This transition mirrors the shift from Moderate to Extremist politics.