Section 48 of the Factories Act, 1948: The Creche Mandate

Historical-law note: Section 48 of the Factories Act, 1948 is no longer in force: the Act was repealed when the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 took effect on 21 November 2025 (OSHWC Code §143). Former section 48 applied where more than thirty women workers were ordinarily employed—not thirty or more—and concerned a suitable room for children under six. This article explains that former rule; current crèche duties must be assessed under the Code on Social Security, 2020 (§67), the OSHWC Code (§24(3)) and applicable rules, including each provision’s scope. The historical provision raises questions about gender equity, childcare and costs.

I. Former Section 48: The Historical Rule

​The Section is deceptively simple, but its complexity lies in its sub-clauses and the state-specific rules derived from it.

1. Former Threshold (More Than 30 Women Workers)

Under former Factories Act §48, a factory in which more than thirty women workers were ordinarily employed had to provide and maintain a suitable room or rooms for children under six. This is a historical description of a repealed provision, not the current crèche test.

• ​Intellectual Counterpoint: Why thirty? This arbitrary number creates a “threshold effect.” If a factory employs 29 women, it has zero legal obligation to provide a creche. This incentivizes “shadow hiring” or keeping female employment just below the cap to avoid the overhead of a creche.

​2. Standards of Construction and Location

​The rooms must provide:

• ​Adequate accommodation: They cannot be cramped storage closets.
• ​Proper lighting and ventilation: To prevent respiratory issues in infants.
• ​Sanitary conditions: Maintained in a clean and tidy manner.
• ​Supervision: Managed by women trained in the care of children and infants.

​3. Empowerment of State Governments

​The Act grants State Governments the power to make rules regarding:

• ​The location of the creche (proximity to the work floor).
• ​The standards of equipment (cradles, bedding, toys).
• ​Provision of free milk or refreshment for children.
• ​Facilities for mothers to feed their children at necessary intervals (Nursing Breaks).

​II. The “Gender Trap”: Testing the Logic

​The primary assumption of Section 48 is that childcare is a woman’s responsibility.

​1. The Exclusion of Fathers

​By tethering the creche requirement exclusively to the number of women workers, the Act reinforces the patriarchal stereotype that male workers do not have childcare needs. If a factory employs 5,000 men and 0 women, the law requires zero childcare facilities, even if those 5,000 men are single fathers or primary caregivers.

​2. Economic Disincentive

​From a cold, capitalistic perspective, Section 48 makes a female worker “more expensive” than a male worker. The employer must factor in:

• ​The square footage of the creche (Real Estate cost).
• ​The salary of the trained attendant (Labor cost).
• ​The cost of milk/supplies (Operating cost).
• ​Loss of productivity during nursing breaks.

​The Counter-Argument: Does Section 48 actually harm female labor force participation by making employers hesitant to cross the 30-woman threshold?

III. Historical State-Rule Details for Former Section 48

Category	Odisha Factories Rules, 1950	Applicability and limits
Space	Rule 74(4): 20 square feet per child.	Rule 74(1): Rules 74–77 take effect for a class of factories only on dates appointed by State Government notification in the Official Gazette.
Staffing	The exact staffing details are not summarized here; consult the applicable rule text.	No applicable factory-class notification was verified in this review; do not assume current applicability.
Nutrition	Rule 76: at least half a pint of clean, pure milk per child per day, plus two feeding intervals of at least 15 minutes.	These are historical Odisha-rule terms, not a statement of current duty. OSHWC Code §143(3) saves earlier rules only insofar as they are not contrary to the Code.
Age limit	Former Factories Act §48 addressed children under six.	Current crèche duties depend on each Code’s scope and applicable rules; the historical age limit alone does not establish a present duty.

IV. Current Crèche Provisions After the Labour Codes

The 2017 amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 added a crèche requirement for covered establishments employing 50 or more employees, but that Act was repealed when the Code on Social Security, 2020 took effect on 21 November 2025. Under current Code on Social Security §67(1), a crèche duty applies to an establishment to which the Code’s maternity-benefit chapter applies and that employs 50 employees or such other number as may be prescribed. Separately, Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 §24(3) authorizes rules for crèche facilities for employees’ children under six; Ministry of Labour FAQs say OSHWC Code crèche availability does not depend on the gender mix. The specific applicable provisions and rules must be checked for the establishment.

Current Provisions and Scope

The earlier text described two Acts operating in parallel; that is no longer the law. The Factories Act and Maternity Benefit Act are repealed; former Section 48’s threshold is historical. Current obligations must be assessed under the Codes in force and the establishments each provision covers.

1. Former Factories Act §48: repealed effective 21 November 2025; its historical trigger was more than 30 women workers.
2. Current Code on Social Security §67(1): a crèche provision for establishments covered by its maternity-benefit chapter, with a threshold of 50 employees or such other number as may be prescribed.

For example, a factory with 40 men and 15 women did not meet former Factories Act §48’s more-than-30-women trigger. Its 55 employees exceed the number specified in Code on Social Security §67(1), subject to that chapter’s scope and applicable rules. This is not a current conflict between two Acts: the Factories Act and Maternity Benefit Act were repealed effective 21 November 2025. OSHWC Code §24(3) is a separate rule-making provision, so assess its duties and rules separately.

​V. The “Dark Side” of Factory Creches: Safety vs. Utility

​1. The Proximity Paradox

​Section 48 requires the creche to be “near” the workplace so mothers can visit. However, factories are high-decibel, high-pollution environments.

• ​The Risk: Are we exposing infants to industrial noise and chemical fumes (Particulate Matter) just to satisfy the “proximity” requirement of the Act?
• ​The Alternative: Centralized, off-site creches shared by multiple factories. Yet, Section 48 technically demands the creche be in the factory.

​2. Liability and Accidents

​If an accident occurs in the factory (e.g., a boiler explosion), the creche becomes a high-density zone of vulnerable individuals. Most factory Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) are optimized for able-bodied adults, often neglecting the evacuation logistics of 30 infants.

​VI. Intellectual Sparing: Is Section 48 Obsolete?

​As your sparring partner, I propose that Section 48 is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.

​The Proposition: We should replace “Mandatory Physical Rooms” with “Childcare Credits.”

• ​Instead of forcing a textile mill to run a subpar daycare, the employer should pay a “Childcare Allowance” or voucher that allows the parent to choose a high-quality neighborhood creche near their home.
• ​Counter-Point: This removes the mother’s ability to breastfeed during the day (Nursing Breaks), which is a biological necessity protected by international labor standards (ILO).

​VII. Conclusion: The Burden of Care

Section 48 was an important welfare provision of the Factories Act, but that Act was repealed effective 21 November 2025. Its more-than-30-women trigger is historical, not the current test. Current crèche duties must be assessed under the Code on Social Security and OSHWC Code as applicable, including each provision’s scope and applicable rules. The policy debate about broader, gender-neutral childcare remains, but should not be confused with the text of a repealed section.

Disclaimer

This content is a collection of ancient history,books and various articles and collection of library and news and other post ; all details may not be the same. Readers are requested to verify the information themselves. Readers are not allowed to take any disciplinary action; content is only for educational purposes. If readers do not agree about the contents, they may send a personal comment to my personal email ID: achary.purna@gmail.com