The OSH Code, 2020 Does Not Archive Shops And Establishments Compliance

What Senior Executives, Auditors, Compliance Officers, General Counsels and HR Heads in Maharashtra should address now

Position as at 05 October 2026

Executive Takeaway

The implementation of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (“OSH Code”) has significantly changed the labour-compliance landscape in Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the “State”). However, it should not be treated as a blanket replacement of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (“Maharashtra Shops Act”).

The distinction is important. Section 143 of the OSH Code repeals 13 specified Central labour enactments, including the Factories Act, 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. The Maharashtra Shops Act is not included in that repeal list.

This is also relevant from a constitutional perspective. Labour welfare and conditions of work fall within Entry 24 of the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, under which both Parliament and State Legislatures have legislative competence. Accordingly, Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact legislation governing employment and conditions of service in establishments within the State. Where a State law and a Central law made on a Concurrent List subject overlap, their interaction must be examined under the constitutional framework, including Article 254, particularly where there is an actual inconsistency or repugnancy.

Against this background, and with a view to aligning the State-level compliance framework with the OSH Code, the Maharashtra Government, through its clarification dated 30 April 2026 bearing reference no. 202604301305155210, has specifically addressed registration. The clarification states that, for establishments covered by the OSH Code, once registration under Section 3 of the OSH Code is obtained following finalization of the applicable rules, separate registration under the Maharashtra Shops Act is not required. However, the clarification expressly preserves compliance with the other provisions of the Maharashtra Shops Act to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the OSH Code. Establishments employing fewer than ten workers continue to be subject to the intimation requirement under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Shops Act.

This creates an important compliance distinction: while registration may move to the OSH Code framework, substantive requirements under the Maharashtra Shops Act should not be treated as automatically extinguished. The Maharashtra Shops Act continues to contain provisions dealing with working hours, weekly holidays, leave, health and safety, welfare facilities, registers and records, annual returns and other conditions of employment.

The correct approach, therefore, is not an “old law versus new law” analysis. It is a provision-by-provision assessment: identify the subject matter regulated by both laws, determine whether the requirements are actually inconsistent, apply the OSH Code where a genuine conflict exists, and continue to comply with Maharashtra Shops Act requirements that remain distinct and legally applicable. This approach is particularly relevant because the OSH Code gives overriding effect to inconsistent provisions while also preserving more favorable employee benefits, subject to the scope and conditions of Section 120.

For businesses in Maharashtra, the practical question is therefore no longer simply:

“Does the Maharashtra Shops Act still apply?”

The more useful question is:

“Which Maharashtra Shops Act compliances have been displaced, which continue independently, and which require a provision-by-provision comparison with the OSH Code?”

That is the focus of this article. Having established why the Maharashtra Shops Act has not disappeared altogether, we will examine, through practical examples, how the two frameworks interact across key areas of compliance, including Registration, Welfare and Benefits, Health and Hygiene, and Safety.

1. Why the Maharashtra Shops Act Has Not Disappeared?

Section 143 of the OSH Code identifies the 13 Central enactments that stand repealed from the notified commencement date. The list does not include any State shops and establishments legislation. The four labour codes consolidated 29 Central labour enactments; they did not, merely by consolidation, repeal every State law regulating shops and commercial establishments.

That distinction is essential. Any overlap between the OSH Code and the Maharashtra Shops Act must instead be tested provision-by-provision, including under Article 254 of the Constitution, the text and purpose of the competing provisions, applicable savings or overriding clauses, and the employee-benefit protection under Section 120 of the OSH Code.

The Maharashtra Shops Act applies across Maharashtra. Following the 2022 amendment, most provisions apply to establishments employing ten or more workers, while Section 7 applies to establishments employing fewer than ten workers. Its definition of “establishment” is broad and includes businesses, trades, professions, specified professional and medical establishments, societies and trusts carrying on relevant activities, shops, hotels, restaurants and entertainment premises, subject to the statutory factory exclusion.

The OSH Code uses a different coverage architecture. Its general definition covers establishments carrying on industry, trade, business, manufacturing or occupation with ten or more workers, along with specified sectoral establishments, factories for Chapter II, mines and ports/dock work. Coverage should therefore be assessed independently under each enactment; similarity in terminology does not make the two coverage tests interchangeable.

The practical implication is that the compliance analysis should move from the general legal question, whether the Maharashtra Shops Act survives to the specific operational question: which requirement applies to this establishment, this activity and this employee population?

Let’s Get Started: Applying the Framework

With that legal and constitutional background in place, the following examples illustrate how the provision-by-provision approach works in practice. The objective is to identify where the compliance position is clear, where the requirements are broadly aligned, and where further clarity is required from the Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026, which are presently in draft form.

2. Registration Provisions

2.1 Registration under the OSH Code

Section 3 of the OSH Code provides for registration of establishments to which the OSH Code applies. An establishment coming into existence after commencement of the OSH Code is required to apply for registration electronically within the 60-day period as specified in the OSH Code, if delayed then with the prescribed late-fee consequences for delayed registration.

In Maharashtra, the potential duplication between the two registration regimes has been specifically addressed by the State Government. Through its clarification dated 30 April 2026 bearing reference no. 202604301305155210, the Maharashtra Government has clarified that, for establishments covered by the OSH Code, once registration under Section 3 of the OSH Code is obtained, separate registration under the Maharashtra Shops Act is not required.

Accordingly, the direction on avoiding duplicate registration is relatively clear, but its practical operation remains linked to the final Maharashtra OSH Rules, the operative registration mechanism and the State-level filing process.

2.2 Changes in Registration Particulars :– A Different Compliance Question

The position becomes less straightforward when there is a subsequent change in the particulars of a registered establishment, such as a change in ownership, management or other registered particulars.

Under Section 3(4) of the OSH Code, where there is a change in ownership or management of an establishment, or in any particulars relating to its registration, the employer is required to intimate the registering officer electronically within 30 days.

The Maharashtra Shops Act, on the other hand, treats changes in registered particulars as an amendment to the existing registration and requires the prescribed process to be followed for updating those particulars.

This creates a practical question: once registration is migrated to the OSH Code framework, will subsequent changes be dealt with merely through an electronic intimation under Section 3(4) of the OSH Code, or will the final Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026 prescribe a more detailed amendment or approval process?

Practical Takeaway: While the 30 April 2026 clarification provides clarity on avoiding duplicate registration, the treatment of post-registration changes and amendments requires further alignment with the Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026, which are presently at the draft stage, and with the operational registration mechanism. Until the applicable rules, prescribed forms and online filing process provide further clarity, establishments should not assume that an OSH Code intimation alone has replaced every existing Maharashtra Shops Act amendment requirement.

2.3 Establishments Employing Fewer Than Ten Workers

Where an establishment employs fewer than ten employees/workers, the requirement to provide an intimation under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Shops Act, instead of obtaining registration, continues to remain applicable and mandatory, subject to the statutory framework and applicable exemptions.

3. Welfare Provisions :- Leave with Wages

3.1 Key Differences in Eligibility, Accrual, Accumulation and Carry-Forward

Section 32 of the OSH Code prescribes entitlement to annual leave with wages, subject to the conditions specified under Section 32(1)(i) to (ix). For this comparison, the eligibility threshold and carry-forward rules are particularly relevant because they differ from the Maharashtra Shops Act.

Under Section 32(1)(i) of the OSH Code, a worker becomes eligible for annual leave with wages upon having worked for 180 days or more during the calendar year, subject to the detailed conditions and deemed-working provisions of the Code and applicable Rules.

In contrast, Section 18 of the Maharashtra Shops Act provides an earned-leave framework linked to 240 days or more of work in a calendar year for entitlement in the subsequent calendar year, with leave generally calculated at one day for every 20 days worked during the preceding calendar year. The Maharashtra Shops Act also separately provides for eight days of paid casual leave in each calendar year, credited quarterly and lapsing if unavailed at year-end.

The comparison should not be limited to the number of leave days. Eligibility, accrual, accumulation, carry-forward, encashment, exit events and the treatment of leave refused by the employer should all be mapped before changing an existing leave policy or payroll control.

Practical Takeaway: The difference between the 180-day qualifying condition under the OSH Code and the 240-day qualifying condition under the Maharashtra Shops Act is a significant employee-benefit consideration. The applicable provisions should therefore be assessed provision-by-provision now, including whether the corresponding Maharashtra provision provides a more favorable entitlement and, if so, how that entitlement interacts with Section 120 of the OSH Code. The Maharashtra OSH Rules, once finalized and implemented, should then be reviewed to confirm the applicable procedural requirements and manner of implementation.

3.2 Annual Return :– Section 26 of the Maharashtra Shops Act

Section 26 of the Maharashtra Shops Act prescribes the requirement relating to submission of an annual return. As the Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026 are presently in draft form, the corresponding annual-return requirements and filing mechanism under the OSH framework are yet to be finalized.

Until the applicable OSH rules, prescribed forms and filing mechanism are finalized and operationalized, establishments should continue to follow the existing applicable annual-return requirements under the Maharashtra Shops Act.

Once the OSH framework is operationalized in Maharashtra, the applicable State-level guidelines, prescribed forms and portal instructions should be reviewed to determine the filing method, including whether the annual return is required to be submitted electronically through a prescribed portal or in any other prescribed manner.

Practical Takeaway: The introduction of the OSH Code does not, by itself, eliminate the existing annual-return compliance under the Maharashtra Shops Act. Until the corresponding OSH requirements and filing mechanism are clearly prescribed and operationalized, the existing Maharashtra Shops Act return process should continue to be followed.

4. Health and Hygiene

Section 23(1) of the OSH Code places a general responsibility on the employer to maintain prescribed health, safety and working conditions for employees in the establishment. Section 23(2), “without prejudice” to the general obligation under Section 23(1), empowers the Government to prescribe specific requirements relating to health, safety and working conditions.

From a cleanliness, hygiene and sanitation perspective, the OSH framework introduces additional requirements, including the employer’s responsibility to maintain prescribed facilities in the establishment and the provision of separate latrine and urinal facilities for transgender employees/workers, as prescribed.

In comparison, the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments framework provides a more flexible approach by permitting, subject to the prescribed conditions, common latrine and urinal facilities by group/multiple employer in shared manner where providing separate facilities is not practicable due to constraints of space or otherwise.

This flexibility may be particularly relevant for commercial establishments and office premises, where space constraints may make separate facilities impractical and common facilities may be maintained and shared by employees, subject to applicable requirements. For establishments occupying shared commercial premises, the existing arrangement may also enable shared infrastructure and cost allocation, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Practical Takeaway: Employers should assess their existing sanitation facilities against the applicable OSH requirements while also considering the flexibility available under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments framework, to the extent the relevant State provision continues to apply pending greater clarity from the Maharashtra OSH Rules.

5. Creche and Canteen Facilities

The OSH Code also prescribes requirements relating to creche and canteen facilities, including under Section 24(1)(v). Based on the corresponding requirements under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments framework, the underlying compliance base is broadly similar in terms of the facilities to be provided and the employer’s responsibility.

Accordingly, where an establishment is already complying with the applicable requirements under the existing Maharashtra Shops Act and Rules, these areas are not presently expected to create a significant additional compliance burden merely because of the OSH Code, subject to the final Maharashtra OSH Rules and any prescribed implementation requirements.

Practical Takeaway: Unlike registration, leave and annual returns, where identifiable differences or procedural uncertainties arise, creche and canteen requirements appear broadly aligned. Employers already complying with the applicable Maharashtra requirements should therefore focus on validating their existing arrangements against the final OSH requirements rather than assuming a fundamental change in compliance.

6. Effect of the OSH Code on Inconsistent Provisions

Section 120 of the OSH Code provides the statutory framework for determining how the Code interacts with other laws, awards, agreements and contracts of service dealing with the same subject matter.

Under Section 120(1), the provisions of the OSH Code have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with the OSH Code contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after commencement of the OSH Code.

However, this overriding effect is subject to an important employee-benefit protection. Where, under an award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, an employee is entitled to benefits in respect of a particular matter that are more favorable than those available under the OSH Code, the employee continues to receive the more favorable benefit, notwithstanding that benefits relating to other matters are governed by the OSH Code.

Section 120(2) further provides that the OSH Code does not preclude an employee from entering into an agreement with an employer granting rights or privileges in respect of any matter that are more favorable than those available under the OSH Code.

For this article, Section 120 therefore provides an important framework for analyzing the continuing applicability of Maharashtra Shops Act provisions. A Maharashtra Shops Act requirement should not be treated as automatically extinguished merely because the OSH Code has come into force if the State requirement is not inconsistent with the OSH Code. Where there is an actual inconsistency on the same subject matter, the OSH Code has overriding effect, subject to the proviso and other applicable legal requirements.

Where an employee has a legally enforceable entitlement under the Maharashtra Shops Act that is more favorable than the corresponding entitlement under the OSH Code, the proviso to Section 120(1) may become relevant. The more favorable benefit may continue, provided the entitlement falls within the scope and conditions of the proviso.

The expression “or otherwise” in Section 120(1) is also relevant because the proviso is not confined to benefits arising only from contracts of service. However, whether a particular statutory entitlement is protected must still be assessed by reference to the wording, subject matter, legal enforceability and operation of the relevant provisions.

Practical Takeaway

Section 120 supports the provision-by-provision approach adopted throughout this article. The questions are not simply whether the Maharashtra Shops Act provision is older or newer than the OSH Code, but:

• Is there an actual inconsistency between the two provisions?
• If there is an inconsistency, does the OSH Code expressly prevail?
• If the Maharashtra Shops Act provides a more favorable employee benefit, is that benefit protected under the proviso to Section 120(1)?

This distinction is particularly important for leave, welfare benefits, health and hygiene and other conditions of employment, where the two frameworks may regulate similar subjects but prescribe different thresholds, entitlements or procedures. The OSH Code should therefore not be understood as automatically overriding every provision of the Maharashtra Shops Act; it overrides inconsistent provisions, while Section 120 preserves the possibility of more favorable employee benefits.

7. Registration: Transitional Position and Due Diligence/Internal Audit Team

Risk point: The 30 April 2026 clarification is an executive communication. It should be implemented consistently with the text of the Maharashtra Shops Act, the final Maharashtra OSH Rules, the OSH Code and any applicable portal-level directions. It should not be read as cancelling a statutory registration by implication before the replacement registration mechanism is available and obtained.

8. Due Diligence Protocol  for Acquisition / Restructuring

1. Identify each Maharashtra establishment and test coverage separately under the Maharashtra Shops Act and the OSH Code.
2. Obtain the current registration certificate, Section 7 intimation (if applicable), amendments, renewals, portal acknowledgements and inspection correspondence.
3. Reconcile the legal name, ownership, management, occupier/employer, address, activities and worker count against corporate and payroll records.
4. Review whether any historic change was notified within the applicable period. Use the draft 30-day OSH update requirement as a readiness point, not as final law, unless the final rules retain it.
5. Treat registration as one workstream only. Review working time, leave, wages, welfare, health and safety, notices, registers and returns separately.
6. Include a closing deliverable allocating responsibility for portal updates, evidence retention and post-closing remediation.

9. The Correct Compliance Approach :– A Layered Matrix

The safest operating model is a provision-by-provision matrix, not an “old law/new law” switch. For each establishment and employee population, the matrix should identify:

• coverage under each statute and any exemption;
• which registration or intimation is currently operative;
• the applicable leave entitlement, carry-forward ceiling and encashment event;
• whether a State-law, Code or contractual benefit is more favorable;
• which portal update or statutory communication is triggered by a corporate change;
• evidence required to demonstrate timely compliance; and
• the responsible business owner and escalation deadline.

Where two provisions address the same subject, the analysis should distinguish true legal inconsistency from cumulative obligations. A registration requirement may remove duplication, but it does not necessarily displace a distinct State-law benefit such as casual leave, festival holidays, a higher carry-forward ceiling or a wider category of covered persons.

Conclusion

The OSH Code is not a compliance archive button. It creates a new central framework and, in Maharashtra, the State Government has clarified the intended move away from duplicate registration for covered establishments once valid OSH registration is obtained under the operative framework. At the same time, other Maharashtra Shops Act obligations continue to the extent they are not inconsistent with the OSH Code.

As the Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026 are presently in draft form and have not yet been finalized and brought into effect, a cautious provision-by-provision approach should continue to be followed. This is particularly important for leave, annual returns, health and hygiene, welfare facilities, change-event filings and other substantive employment conditions.

Where an employee is entitled to a benefit under the Maharashtra Shops Act that is more favorable than the corresponding benefit under the OSH Code, Section 120(1) provides a basis for continuation of such more favorable benefit, subject to the scope and conditions of the provision. Accordingly, the OSH Code should not be understood as automatically displacing a more favorable employee benefit merely because the corresponding Maharashtra Shops Act provision differs from the Code.

Practical approach: Until the Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026 are finalized and the State Government provides greater clarity through the operative rules, prescribed forms, procedures, portal instructions and implementation framework, employers should assess each relevant compliance requirement separately, identify any actual inconsistency with the OSH Code, and determine whether the corresponding Maharashtra Shops Act requirement continues to apply or provides a more favorable employee entitlement.

Key Legal References

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (Act 37 of 2020), especially Sections 1(2), 2(1)(v), 3, 23, 24, 32, 120 and 143 and the applicable savings/overriding framework.

Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (Maharashtra Act LXI of 2017), as amended in 2022, especially Sections 1, 2(4), 6, 7, 18 and 26.

Draft Maharashtra Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Labour) Rules, 2026, Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary Part I-L, 30 April 2026, especially draft Rule 3.

Government of Maharashtra clarification dated 30 April 2026 regarding registration under the OSH Code and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, reference no. 202604301305155210.

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Additional FAQs on Labour Codes (as on 16 March 2026), as relevant to worker coverage and implementation.

Important Note

This update states the legal and regulatory position identified as at 05 October 2026. The Maharashtra OSH Rules, 2026 discussed above are presently in draft form; the final rules, commencement instruments, portal specifications and subsequent Government directions should be checked before implementation. This publication is intended for general information and does not address establishment-specific facts, exemptions, settlements, awards, standing orders or contractual benefits.

………..