Strain on Stardom

The debate in Bollywood regarding work hours does need attention. A middle-path solution for having ethical boundaries while allowing individuals to thrive and realise their full potential, and businesses to get full returns—needs to be drawn out. The entertainment industry has given us a lot over the years. A law that caters to their lives while maintaining the economics of showbiz is needed.

While it is true that all leading examples of individuals who have excelled in their respective fields have spent immense time working, it is also true that working of one’s own free will—when it brings joy—is different from compulsively working for undefined hours due to a lack of regulations. Moreover, spending time learning, practising, or working from the comfort of offices or homes, with optional work hour choices and incentivised luxurious payouts or generous overtime, is different from working in varied locations under tough conditions. In fact, even when payouts are substantial, some boundaries ought to be defined.

Midway, clear regulations covering the grey areas in the glamour industry are needed. The argument that, because the industry brings pizzazz and fortune to some, work hours shouldn’t ever be capped may prove unethical for many. Conversely, simply capping work hours with stringent limits and without any flexibility may make it unviable for production houses and businesses that spend colossal amounts, while also curtailing the rights of those who are willing—or need—to work longer, especially in the initial years.

The solution lies in permitting permutations and combinations of various provisions, rather than enforcing a single, stringent cap on work hours. For instance, a specific number of hours could be fixed, which may be extended to a limited extent with consent and accompanied by defined payouts, especially for individuals at the middle and lower levels. Shift work could be regulated to prohibit overlapping of the maximum permitted hours in both day and night shifts for the same person on the same day. Where scenes are required both during the day and night, reasonable hours with longer breaks could be provided, in genuine circumstances, to ease the burden when shoots on different days become cumbersome. Permitting flexi-hours—i.e., longer hours in a day with fewer working days in a week, based on consensus—could also be stipulated. Some terms, based on consent and within legally bound flexible parameters, could be allowed.

Statutory working hours, as well as any permitted extensions, should be based on discussions—taking into consideration the views of professionals at various levels—and must be realistic, allowing flexibilities for contingencies. These must ensure individual well-being and support the ultimate objective of filmmaking. These are some of the points to be kept in mind while framing regulations.

India has different sets of regulations for shops, establishments, factories, mines, plantations, newspapers, etc., based on the nature of employment. To cite an example, the Shops and Establishments Act in Delhi states that employees cannot be made to work for more than nine hours a day or 48 hours in any week. It also mandates a break after five hours. Overtime with payment is permitted but not beyond the stipulated limit. The “spread-over,” i.e., the total working hours in a day including breaks, is permitted up to ten and a half hours in a commercial establishment, while in a shop it is permitted up to twelve hours. Apparently, many activities are also exempted from certain provisions depending on need and viability. For instance, while late-night work for women is generally not permitted, certain industries like IT in some states are allowed to do so, subject to providing safe working conditions. The Factories Act prohibits overlapping shifts. Likewise, there are many such provisions.

The film industry too needs a separate set of laws. As of now, the closest relevant legislation is the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981, which is meant for individuals employed in or in connection with the production of a feature film as an artiste (including actor, musician, or dancer), or to do any work—skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical, artistic, or otherwise. It is applicable only to people with a defined salary limit, and hence its applicability is quite limited. Under the new labour codes—which are yet to come into force—wider coverage is anticipated, as the terminology includes “audio and visual.”

Overall, there is a need to promulgate specific provisions for individuals in the glamour-based industry, particularly in films and serials, which operate on an assignment or project-based format. For information, it may be noted that structured entities like establishments, apart from defined working hours, also face many restrictions. For example, there is a prohibition on double employment—i.e., at any point of time, one cannot be employed with more than one employer. Further, an employee also cannot legally give consent to work beyond the stipulated hours. The statute recognises the lack of bargaining power of employees and makes rest and rejuvenation mandatory even from the employee’s side. However, such restrictions on double employment would neither be fair nor pragmatic for professionals in the glamour industry, as their work is not permanent. Still, when comparing work hours to other laws, these restrictions must be kept in mind.

Overall, regulations could be framed by fixing a base number of hours, which can be extended up to a specified limit; regulating shift work; allowing some flexibility; and defining extra payouts especially for middle- and lower-level individuals. Rejuvenated and satisfied individuals lead to performance excellence. Middle-path provisions lead to optimum gains.

The writer is a practising Advocate in the Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi. Views expressed are personal