2026, Vol. 9, Issue 1

Labour welfare is a cornerstone of inclusive and sustainable economic development, especially in a diverse and populous country like India. The analysis focuses on identifying the sources of funding for welfare initiatives and critically assessing their adequacy, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability when catering to the formal and informal labour markets. This paper presents a conceptual analysis based on secondary data gathered from the official websites of key institutions like the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), the Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), the Ministry of Labour & Employment, the Ministry of Finance, and other relevant bodies. Workers in the formal sector are covered by statutory social security schemes such as the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF), Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS), Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance (EDLI), and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI), offering retirement, health, and insurance benefits. In contrast, unorganised sector workers rely on government welfare schemes like the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme, Atal Pension Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana, Jan Dhan Yojana, Janani Suraksha Yojana, and Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana aim to provide basic social protection, including pensions, insurance, and financial inclusion for vulnerable groups. The analysis is presented using tables. The study examines data on formal sector schemes spanning the period from 2008-09 to 2022-23. In contrast, for informal sector schemes, only data for 2022-23 is analysed due to the unavailability of previous years' data. The study found that formal sector policies since 2016 have had a discernible effect on expanding access to formal social security mechanisms. However, schemes designed for the informal sector, despite their extensive reach, often provide substantially lower financial benefits on a per capita basis. A key limitation of these informal sector programs is the absence of consistent and comparable data over time, which restricts meaningful longitudinal analysis. The absence of gender-disaggregated reporting further impairs the ability to evaluate the equity and inclusiveness of these initiatives, particularly in light of the gendered nature of labour market vulnerabilities. Addressing these gaps necessitates an integrated approach involving the digitisation of welfare delivery systems, the consolidation of beneficiary databases, and enhanced accountability in resource allocation.