On January 2, 2026, reporting around the Industrial Relations Code draft rules spotlighted a sharp new expectation: when a worker is retrenched, a reskilling fund payout should land fast - within 45 days of job loss - and the amount is pegged to 15 days of the worker's last drawn wages. The significance is not the number alone, but the design: it converts what used to be a messy, negotiated, often-delayed separation reality into a clock-driven compliance artifact. This draft-rule framing appears alongside the wider move by the Ministry of Labour and Employment to pre-publish draft rules across all four Labour Codes (Wages, Social Security, Industrial Relations, OSHWC) and invite stakeholder inputs within defined windows. If you are HR, this is not "policy someday" - it is the early scaffolding of how separations will be tested, documented, and litigated in the next cycle.
The emotional punch is the part leaders underestimate. Retrenchment is already a rupture, but the worst injuries often happen after the exit email - when money is promised but not delivered, when timelines blur, when a worker is forced into borrowing, shame, and silence. A fast reskilling payout changes the psychology: it signals, "We did not just remove you, we created a bridge." But it also sets a trap for organizations that run separations like improvisation: if payroll, finance, and HR operations cannot coordinate within a fixed window, the company will relive the layoff story twice - once in the office, and again in complaints, escalations, and public narratives. In 2026 workplaces, speed is empathy - and also reputational insurance.
From a compliance and controls lens, treat this like a statutory payable with a stopwatch. Under the Industrial Relations Code architecture, the reskilling fund concept is meant to be additional to retrenchment compensation, not a substitute, and the draft-rule reporting suggests a specific timeline expectation that will be easy for inspectors, unions, and courts to verify. HR teams should pre-build a "retrenchment closing kit": final settlement checklist, last-drawn wage definition mapping, trigger-based payment workflow, and board-approved authority matrix so the payout does not wait for ad hoc approvals. Also assume audit questions: Was it paid within time, to whom, through what trail, and how does it reconcile with severance and statutory dues? The future separation process is not just humane - it is measurable.
If a reskilling payout becomes a timed obligation, what does "ethical layoff" look like beyond money - job search support, references, redeployment priority, mental health care, or something else?
What internal controls would you build so the 45-day clock never becomes a compliance breach - automated triggers, maker-checker approvals, escrow provisioning, or a dedicated separation payroll lane?
Source: @TOI, @ET, @PIB
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7The emotional punch is the part leaders underestimate. Retrenchment is already a rupture, but the worst injuries often happen after the exit email - when money is promised but not delivered, when timelines blur, when a worker is forced into borrowing, shame, and silence. A fast reskilling payout changes the psychology: it signals, "We did not just remove you, we created a bridge." But it also sets a trap for organizations that run separations like improvisation: if payroll, finance, and HR operations cannot coordinate within a fixed window, the company will relive the layoff story twice - once in the office, and again in complaints, escalations, and public narratives. In 2026 workplaces, speed is empathy - and also reputational insurance.
From a compliance and controls lens, treat this like a statutory payable with a stopwatch. Under the Industrial Relations Code architecture, the reskilling fund concept is meant to be additional to retrenchment compensation, not a substitute, and the draft-rule reporting suggests a specific timeline expectation that will be easy for inspectors, unions, and courts to verify. HR teams should pre-build a "retrenchment closing kit": final settlement checklist, last-drawn wage definition mapping, trigger-based payment workflow, and board-approved authority matrix so the payout does not wait for ad hoc approvals. Also assume audit questions: Was it paid within time, to whom, through what trail, and how does it reconcile with severance and statutory dues? The future separation process is not just humane - it is measurable.
If a reskilling payout becomes a timed obligation, what does "ethical layoff" look like beyond money - job search support, references, redeployment priority, mental health care, or something else?
What internal controls would you build so the 45-day clock never becomes a compliance breach - automated triggers, maker-checker approvals, escrow provisioning, or a dedicated separation payroll lane?
Source: @TOI, @ET, @PIB
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.