SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Social security, being an integral part of the development process, is as relevant as physical security in the evolving concept of human security and is crucial for the well-being of workers, their families and for entire community. It refers to all provisions/programs/schemes established by the state government to ensure individuals against intermissions or loss of earning power arising from disability, unemployment, retirement and natural calamities.

The protection of beneficiaries, usually, is extended through cash payments to compensate at least a portion of the income loss resulting from old age, sickness, disability, death etc (Tiwari, Ghei and Goel, 2017). In other words, it is overall security for a person in the family, workplace and society and hereby is considered as continuous economic support to meet the basic needs as well as contingencies of life in order to maintain an adequate standard of living (Bharat and Paul, 2015). Every nation is making possible efforts to provide social protection to its citizens. ILO, for the first time, focused on recognition of the fundamental social rights guaranteed by law, to all human beings. Later on, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights recognised social security as a fundamental human right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, entitles the Right to life with human dignity, which encompasses not only the security regarding the basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter but also health security (Kulkarni, Raju, Bammidi n.d.). Despite this, only 45 percent of the global population is covered effectively by at least one of the social security benefits, and only 29 percent population is availing comprehensive social security including the full range of benefits, while the remaining 55 percent, i.e. 4 billion people, are left unprotected (ILO, 2017). In the Asia and Pacific region, only 38.9 per cent of the population is covered by at least one social protection benefit. A majority, i.e. 71 per cent, are either not protected or only partially protected by any measure of social security.

In the Indian context, social security is a comprehensive and need-based approach, which is designed to prevent deprivation (Bhat and Yadav, 2017). The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India provide sufficient guarantee against exploitation and also have a significant influence on the social security legislation and has asserted social and economic justice to all its citizens (Bhat and Yadav, 2017). Even after 71 years of independence, only 8 percent of workers have availed the benefits under various provisions. The rest 92 percent of workers have informal employment, low income and have no coverage of social security. They have to spend out of their small incomes on all contingencies such as illness and children’s education and are helpless in their old age (Prakash, 2015). India also has plenty of social protection schemes of social assistance, social insurance and social protection, considering different segments of the population, at the Central and State level.

Provision of social security is mandatory as a worker cannot be economically active all the times due to many reasons such as modernity, sickness or old age; on account of personal calamities such as widow-hood, accidents; social or natural calamities such as unemployment, flood, fire drought, unemployment, retrenchment. They face the double loss of income, in the form of loss of work caused by inability and in expenditure incurred to overcome physical and natural calamities. Moreover, increasing life expectancy and changing support systems for elderly population also finger towards the need of retirement benefits in the form of pension and provident funds. Thus, social security is an economic as well as a social necessity which promotes progress and productivity. Herein, it becomes crucial to understand the provisions of social security available to workers belonging to various segments and association with various inter-personal andorganizational characteristics.

In this backdrop, the present study is an attempt to investigate the prerogative of Indian workforce for various provisions of social security with special reference to qualitative attributes of workers and nature of work and workplace. The paper continues with Section 2 highlighting relevant literature review and hypotheses building for the study. Section 3 specifies the methodology employed in the course of the study. Section 4 deals with the results and discussion while Section 5 is devoted to conclusion and policy suggestions of the study.

SECTION 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

During recent years, the very low entitlement of workers for provisions of social security is a subject of concern for both developed and developing countries. Most of the developing countries are characterized by chronic poverty, extreme inequality, high levels of unemployment, under-employment and disguised unemployment creating a dire need for social security benefits. Many academicians have attempted to analyse prerogatives of workers for social security in relation to quality of workforce and their employment status.

2.1 Status of Indian Workforce Covered under Social Security Provisions:

Majority of the labour force in India is predominantly rural, illiterate and is living in the absence of an adequate safety net to meet emergencies such as ill-health, accident, death and old age complications. Herein, social security can provide a solution to problems by providing free/concessional education, health services, disability allowances and old age pension. These provisions help in maintaining stable labour relations and a productive workforce (Kulkarni, Raju, Bammidi, n.d.). In India, a wide range of social security benefits is available to different sections of the population but unlike the OECD countries and elsewhere, all measures are poorly structured and institutionalized. Also, the global average for social security expenditure is 8.39% of GDP while this proportion is 4.05% of the GDP for India (Duggal, 2012). Srivastva (2013) found that expenditure on social security as a percentage of GDP is increasing. Despite that, at all India level, about 72 percent workers are not eligible for any social security benefits, out of which 80 percent belongs to a rural area, and 64 percent are of urban areas, and 74 percent of the female workers are not eligible for any the social security. The NSS report also revealed that about 93 percent of the casual workers were not wrapped under the specified social security benefits in the year 2011-12, whereas this proportion was 50 percent for regular wage/salaried workers (NSS, 2014). In India, 93 percent of workers are engaged in the unorganized/informal sector for their livelihood, are not entitled to social security provisions (Bharat and Paul, 2015; Papola, 2008). In a recap, present social security system in India is suffered mainly by a multiplicity of law, shortage of coverage, lack of policy and scarcity of implementation mechanism. Hereby, we can assume that the position of workers on every provision of social security is similar indicating a meager coverage.

H₀1: Prerogative of Indian workers for every provision of social security is similar.

2.2 Quality of Workforce and Prerogative of Workers for Social Security Provisions:

Education and training provide better work opportunities to the workforce. Costs incurred on acquiring education and additional training programmes is compensated by higher future earnings. The workers with higher education are considered more competent and productive and are, generally, offered high wages and are given additional incentives (Sarkar and Mehta, 2010). In the same line, Purcell et al. (2015) estimated the impact of education on projected earnings and social security benefits and concluded that social security benefits increase with career-average earnings, and earnings increase with education and work experience. Further, workers from rural areas are more likely to enter into the agricultural sector as self-employed workers or engage themselves inunorganisedpower handloom, weaving, village/cottage industries due to the low level of education and skill, which don’t provide them any social security (Gunatilaka, 2008; NCEUS, 2009; Tanabe and Urdinola, 2016). Thus, a significant proportion of informal workers have remained outside the social security net (Fasih, 2011). Hereby, qualitative attributes of workforceare supposed to affect social security provisions (NSS, 2014).

H₀2: Qualitative attributes of workers are independent of their prerogative for social security provisions.

H₀2_a: Educational status of workers is independent of their prerogative for social security provisions.

H₀2_b: Vocational training of workers is independent of their prerogative for social security provisions.

H₀2_c: Residence of workers is independent of their prerogative for social security provisions.

2.3 Status of Employment and Prerogative of Workers for Social Security Provisions:

Several studies have revealed out that social security benefits are associated with nature of work and workplace. In this line, Srivastva (2013) and Fasih (2011) revealed that most of the casual workers did not entitle for social security benefits. Around 94 percent of casual workers, in non-agriculture sectors, are not covered under any of the social security benefits (NSS, 2014). So far as regular workers are concerned, very few have been providing all the benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, health cover, etc. by their employers. NSS, 2014 also confirmed that about 50 percent of regular wage workers are not eligible for any of the social security benefits.

Most of the workers employed in the public sector/formal sector are eligible for social security. In this line, Srivastva (2013) found that social security benefits are legally binding and are available for the majority of formal workers in the organised sector. However, the situation is the opposite in the case of private households, construction and trade. A meagre percentage of the unorganised sector workers and contractual workers get formal social security arrangements.

Size of the firm/organization is also crucial in this regard. Small firms tend to have a higher level of informality compared to large firms, and due to a smaller number of workers, they remain unidentified. Workers employed in small firms are highly informal and are not entitled to social security benefits. A negative association between social security entitlement and the size of the organization has also been obtained (Gunatilaka, 2008).

H₀3: Employment status of workers is independent of their entitlement to social security provisions.

H₀3_a: Nature of work, i.e. casual and regular, is independent of workers prerogative for social security provisions.

H₀3_b: Prerogative of wage workers for social security provisions is not associated with the size of the enterprise.

H₀3_c: Job contract of wage workers is independent of their entitlement to social security provisions.

H₀3_d: Nature and type of enterprise do not affect the entitlement of workforce for social security provisions.

SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY:

3.1 Data Collection and Specification of Variables: The present study intends to examine the association between qualitative and work-related attributes of wage workers and their prerogative for social security provisions in India. For the purpose, unit level data of Employment-Unemployment round of NSS (68^thround) survey has been obtained to overview a comprehensive picture of the working population and their prerogative towards various provisions of social security. The survey comprises of a total of 4,56,999 persons (2,80,763 in rural areas and 1,76,236 in urban areas), out of which the information pertaining to 54114 wage workers have been extracted to measure their coverage in various social security benefits.

Three provisions of the social security, i.e. provident fund (PF)/ pension, gratuity, healthcare and maternity benefits, have been considered in the study. The term Provident Fund (PF) include General Provident Fund, Contributory Provident Fund, Public Provident Fund and Employees Provident Fund.

Qualitative attributes of wage workers have been indicated by level of general education, vocational training and area of residence of workers, whereas nature of employment; tenure of job contract, size of organization, nature and type of enterprise, wherein a worker is employed have been considered as a proxy to capture work and work-related attributes to find their association with entitlement of workers for various social security provisions.

3.2 Tools and Techniques:

The present study employed a non-parametric chi-square (χ2) test to test the mentioned hypotheses. This test analyses the observed and expected frequencies in each category to test whether all the categories contain the same proportion of values. Although a significant chi-squared statistic suggests for the existence of a relationship between two variables, it does not describe the strength of association (effect size) of a statistically significant relationship. Hereby, Crammer's V (V) test statistics is employed to find the strength of association confirmed by χ2 and also to overcome the complications resulting from the tables of different dimensions which otherwise are difficult to compare directly. Value of this index ranges from 0 (no effect) to +1 (a perfect effect). A higher value indicates a stronger association. Cohen (1988, 1992) has also provided widely used criteria to measure effect size using the coefficient of correlation (r) and crammer’s V. Herein, V = .10, indicates small effect and in this case, the measured effect explains 1% of the total variance. If V = .30, it denotes moderate effect size which accounts for 9% of the total variance. The value of V = .50 is an indication of large effect and accounts for 25% of the variance.

SECTION 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

On analyzing the unit level data of NSSO 68^thpertaining to 54114 workers, it is derived out that 36002 workers, i.e. 66 percent of workers, are not entitled to any of the social security provisions. Among all, 11306 workers, i.e. 21 percent, are entitled to all three types of the social security benefits. Among partial entitled wage workers, 6.6 percent are entitled only for PF/Pension, 0.6 percent only for gratuity and only 1.1 percent workers are entitled to health care and maternity benefits. In total, only 33.4 are entitledfor at least one provision of social security (table 1) and 4.2 percent workers are getting benefited by any two of social security provisions. Thus, despite the recognition of the needfor social security provisions worldwide, these are beyond the reach of majority of the working population.Though the reach of provident fund and pension benefit is confined to a limited stratum, but still it is the only benefit covering majority of workers entitled for social security provisions. Hereby, our null hypothesis of prerogative of Indian wage workers for every provisions of social security are similar can be refuted.

So far as the association of qualitative attributes of wage workers and their prerogative for social security provisions is concerned, the study found a significant association in this concern. Academic qualification, vocational training and residence are considered crucial in getting better work opportunities. On analysing the association between general education and social security provisions from table-2, it can be concluded that along with an increase in education level entitlement to social security provisions also increases (χ2 (20) = 14889.35, p< .01), with medium effect size (V=.262). It is clear from the table that 7800 illiterate workers, i.e. 94.5 percent of the total illiterate workers are not eligible for any social security, whereas this proportion is 23 percent workers with qualification postgraduate and above. A very low,i.e. 2.8 percent of illiterate workers are entitled to all provisions, whereas this percentage is 49.7 percent for postgraduate and above and 44.7 for graduates and diploma holders. It makes us to reject the null hypothesis is of no association between general education and prerogative for social security provisions leading to the conclusion that workers with the low level of education are usually, not found eligible for high-rank positions and often get employed at low ranks/work positions which lack amenities and social security provisions.

Similar is the case with vocationally trained workers as the study found a significant association between the vocational training of workers and their prerogative for social security (χ2 (10) = 1985.02, p< .01), with low effect size (V=.11). A high percentage of the workers, i.e. 34 percent, who have received formal vocational training are entitled to all social security provisions as compared to workers who either have received non-formal vocational training (10.5 percent) or didn’t receive any such training (22.0 percent). Majority of the workers, who have not received any vocational education (65.5 percent) or have received non-formal vocational training (80.2 percent) are not eligible for any social security (table 1). Hence, we can reject the null hypothesis that vocational training of workers is independent of their prerogative for social security provisions making us to conclude that trained workers with higher qualifications tend to be covered by social security.

In the same line, association between residence and social security entitlement for wage workers is found to be significant (χ2 (5) =4.88, p< .01), with low effect size (V= 0.095). Hereby, it can be concluded that entitlement to social security is more for urban workers than those belonging to urban areas (table 2). Hereby, the hypothesis of independence of residence of workers and their prerogative security provisions can be rejected.

So far as work and work-place related attributes are concerned, the study brought out their importance in determining the prerogative of workers for social security provisions. Table-3 shows that the nature of employment is very crucial in this concern as the majority of casual workers, i.e. 98 percent of total 19211 casual workers, are not eligible for any type of the social security, whereas this percentage is only 32 percent among regular workers indicating a significant association between nature of work and social security provisions (χ2 (5) =14099.44, p< .01), with high effect size (V= .51). Hence, the null hypothesis of no associated between the nature of employment and prerogative of workers for social security can be refuted leading to the conclusion that casual workers are more vulnerable in terms of low earning power on the one hand and no or very less entitlement for social security provisions another her hand.

On analysing the association between size of enterprise in terms of number of workers employed therein, and social security, it can be concluded that the size of enterprise/organization is positively associated with workers entitlement for social security (χ2 (10) =9900.24, p< .01), with medium effect size (V= .30). A perusal of table 3 makes clear that 83 percent of the total workers working with the enterprises employing less than 10 workers are not availing benefits of any type of the social security, whereas this proportion is 38 percent for those working with organizations employing a minimum of 20 workers (table 3). The reason behind is that enterprises with more than 20 employees have to register their firm and have to provide social security to their employees on a mandatory basis. However, small enterprises may get registered, but usually, it does not happen for various reasons specifically to avoid taxes and legal provisions for corporate bodies. Hereby, the majority of workers in small enterprises are not entitled to social security and remain vulnerable than those employed in large size enterprises making us to reject the null hypothesis of no association between the size of enterprises and social security provisions.

The prerogative of workers for social security provisions also found to be positively associated with tenure of job contract (χ2 (10) =25552.1, p< .01), with high effect size (V= .48). Table 3 shows that the majority of workers in the absence of any job contract do not get any of the benefits of social security. It is clear from the table that a higher percentage of the workers (85 %) with no job contract are not entitled to any social security. Only 7 percent of the total workers without any written job contract are eligible for all three type of the security, while this percentage is quite high, i.e. 62 percent for those having a job contract for more than 3 years. Hereby, we can say that the workers without any job contract, not only face work insecurity but also lack social security making us to refute the null hypothesis of no association between the tenure of job contract and social security provisions to workers.

Nature of enterprise is a significant factor to explain the prerogative of the workforce for social security as a significant association has been found between the two (χ2 (5) =25273.6, p< .01), with very high effect size (V= .68, C= 0.56). It is clear from table 3, that 94 percent of workers employed in the informal sector are not eligible for social security, whereas this percentage is 30 percent in the formal sector. In the formal sector, 46 per cent of workers is entitled to all provisions of social security, whereas negligible (1.7 percent) workers are entitledto the same in the informal sector. The result leads to rejects the null hypothesis of no association between the nature of the enterprise and social security provisions.

A worker can work under proprietary or partnership and also can work with government or private or non-cooperative enterprises/organization or can opt to work as a domestic servant. As perusal from table 3, out of total 54114 workers, 25137 workers (46%) are self-employed and are working as proprietors. Consequently, 94 percent of them are not availing of any of the social security benefits. Provision of social security is highest in the Government sector (58 percent) followed by Co-operative societies and NGO (15.3 percent) and Public/Private Ltd. Companies (14.4 percent). Entitlement to social security is almost negligible for domestic workers (0.9 percent). In partnership, about 82 percent, of the total 1202 workers, are not eligible for any kind of social security (table 3). In public/ private Ltd. companies and co-operative societies, only 15 percent of workers are availing all three types of the social security benefits. A significant association between enterprise type and social security has been found (χ2 (25) =31353.5, p< .01), with high effect size (V= .34) making us to conclude that prerogative of workforce for social security is highest in government sector followed by co-operative societies and Public/Private Ltd. Companies. These provisions are negligible for domestic workers and self-employed workers. Hereby, the null-hypothesis of no association between the nature of the enterprise and social security can be rejected.

Hereby, the analysis brought out the fact that both, the quality of the workforce and the status of employment, can define the prerogative of the workforce for social security provisions.

SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS:

Social security is a comprehensive approach designed to prevent deprivation, to protect the individual from uncertainties and to ensure a basic minimum income for individuals. A robust social security system of a nation helps in improving productivity, fostering amicable labour relations, and promoting social and economic development in the country. Thus, it not only aims at the personal welfare of citizen but is also connected to national economic prosperity. The study found that qualitative attributes of the workforce help in getting better job opportunities in the formal sector and thus opens a route of entitlement for social security provisions. Nature of work and status of employment is also emerged as a significant factor in determining the prerogative of the workforce for social security provisions. Herein, regular workers and contractual workers working with formal and large enterprises/organizations, government sector, formal private limited companies and cooperative societies are entitled to social security provisions. Casual workers, domestic servants, self-employed and workers employed in the informal sector without any job contract have remained out of the social security net.

Keeping in view the prerogative of the workforce for social security provisions, a strong policy to expand the safety net is required. Low and week coverage of social security system reveals out pathetic picture of an economy wherein majority lives in uncertainty. Moreover, we have been talking these days for entrepreneurship promotion and startup programmes so that our youth can stand up as job providers, not as job seekers. At the same time, self-employed are kept out of social security net to handle uncertainties in life, and a very small proportion of wage workers are covered under the safety net of social security. Hereby, there is a dire need to sense the issue and to cover domestic workers, entrepreneurs, informal workers in agriculture and industries, children and elderly population to create an environment of safety and security. It shall be helpful in encouraging a real sense of entrepreneurship with confidence to handle the situation in unforeseen circumstances. Introduction of new social security schemes is an appreciable step to ensure insurance and pension for all. Though, Pradhan Mantri Suraksha BimaYojna (PMSBY), Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY), Atal Pension Yojana (APY) are introduced recently for the well-being of community but are not widespread and sufficient. Overall, a move towards universal social security legislation in the path of the economic development should be ensured. It would not only ensure income security but also lead to a better investment climate, thereby will be helpful to enhance significantly the competitiveness of our economy.

ANNEXURE:

Table-1: Prerogative of Indian Workforce for Social Security Provisions

	Frequency	Percent
Eligible for only provident fund/ pension	3596	6.6
Eligible for only gratuity	351	.6
Eligible for only healthcare and maternity	577	1.1
Eligible for any two of the provident /pension, healthcare and maternity, gratuity	2282	4.3
Eligible for provident /pension, healthcare and maternity, gratuity	11306	20.9
Not eligible for any of above social security	36002	66.5
Total	54114	100.0

Source: Compiled from NSS (2011-12). Employment and unemployment schedule 10, 68^th round unit level data, CD- Rom. Delhi: Ministry of statistics and programme implementation, Government of India.

Table-2: Association between Quality of Workforce and Prerogative of Social Security

Indicators	The prerogative of Workers for Social Security Provisions						Total (100 %)	Chi-square Coefficient	Cramer's V
Indicators	Entitlement for only Pf/ pension	Entitlement for the only gratuity	Entitlement for only healthcare and ssMaternity	Entitlement for any two of the Pf/ Pension, Healthcare and maternity, gratuity	Entitlement for PF/pension, healthcare and Maternity, gratuity	Not Entitlement for any of the above social security	Total (100 %)	Chi-square Coefficient	Cramer's V
Educational Status
Not Literate	101 (1.2%)	22 (0.3%)	38 (0.5%)	60 (0.7%)	230 (2.8%)	7800 (94.5%)	8251 (100%)	14889.34	.262
Up to primary	223 (2.1%)	36 (0.3%)	70 (0.7%)	124(1.2%)	568(5.4%)	9506(90.3%)	10527 (100%)
Primary to higher secondary	1405 (6.4%)	148 (0.7%)	247(1.1%)	806(3.7%)	4274(19.6%)	14927(68.5%)	21807 (100%)
graduate and diploma holder	1367 (13.8%)	107 (1.1%)	159 (1.6%)	915(9.3%)	4418(44.7%)	2909(29.5%)	9875 (100%)
Post graduate and above	500 (13.7%)	38 (1.0%)	63 (1.7%)	377(10.3%)	1816(49.7%)	860(23.5%)	3654 (100%)
Vocational training
Formal vocational training	388 (10.5%)	35 (0.9%)	62(1.7%)	334(9.0%)	1260(34.1%)	1616(43.7%)	3695 (100%)	1985.02	.111
Non-formal vocational training	242 (3.7%)	31(0.5%)	86(1.3%)	243(3.7%)	684(10.5%)	5214(80.2%)	6500 (100%)
did not receive vocational training	2906 (6.9%)	279 (0.7%)	406(1.0%)	1678(4.0%)	9278 (22.0%)	27576(65.5%)	42123 (100%)
Total	3596 (6.6%)	351 (0.6%)	577(1.1%)	2282(4.2%)	11306 (20.9%)	36002(66.5%)	54114 (100%)
Residence
Rural	1618(6.2%)	129(0.5%)	253(1.0%)	860(3.3%)	4718(18.1%)	18555 (71.0%)	26133 (100%)	4.887*	0.095
Urban	1978(7.1%)	222(0.8%)	324(1.2%)	1422(5.1%)	6588(23.5%)	17447(62.4%)	27981 (100%)
Total	3596(6.6%)	351(0.6%)	577(1.1%)	2282(4.2%)	11306(20.9%)	36002(66.5%)	54114 (100%)

Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis show the percentage of row total

2. * P< .01

Source: Compiled from NSS (2011-12). Employment and unemployment schedule 10, 68^th round unit level data, CD- Rom. Delhi: Ministry of statistics and programme implementation, Government of India.

Table 3: Association between Employment Status of Workers and Prerogative of Social Security

Indicators of Employment Status	The prerogative of Workers for Social Security Provisions						Total (100 %)	Chi-square Coefficient	Cramer's V
Indicators of Employment Status	Entitlement for only Pf/ pension	Entitlement for the only gratuity	Entitlement for only healthcare and Maternity	Entitlement for any two of the Pf/ Pension, Healthcare and maternity, gratuity	Entitlement for PF/pension, healthcare and Maternity, gratuity	Not eligible for any of above social security	Total (100 %)	Chi-square Coefficient	Cramer's V
Nature of Employment
Regular wage/ salaried workers	3558 (10.3%)	292 (0.8%)	504 (1.5%)	2239(6.5%)	11236 (32.5%)	16791 (48.5%)	34620 (100 %)	14099.44*	.510
Casual wage workers	38(0.2%)	59 (0.3%)	73(0.4%)	43(0.2%)	70 (0.4%)	19211 (98.5%)	19494 (100 %)	14099.44*	.510
Size of Enterprise/ Organisation
less than 10 Workers	1171(3.7%)	179(0.6%)	220(0.7%)	587(1.9%)	3243(10.3%)	25945(82.8%)	3134 (100 %)	9900.24*	.302
11-20 workers	654(8.7%)	50(0.7%)	84(1.1%)	328(4.3%)	2096(27.8%)	4334(57.4%)	7546 (100 %)
20 and above workers	1771(11.6%)	122(0.8%)	273(1.8%)	1367(9.0%)	5967(39.2%)	5723(37.6%)	15223 (100 %)
Tenure of Job Contract
No written job contract	1576(4.0%)	197(0.5%)	315(0.8%)	823(2.1%)	2893(7.4%)	33138(85.1%)	38942 (100 %)	25552.1*	.486
Job contract for less than3 year	175(8.7%)	47(2.3%)	76(3.8%)	165(8.2%)	211(10.4%)	1349(66.7%)	2023 (100 %)
Job contract for more than 3 years	1845(14.0%)	107(0.8%)	186(1.4%)	1294(9.8%)	8202(62.4%)	1515(11.5%)	13149 (100 %)
Nature of Enterprise/ Organisation
Informal	491(1.6%)	156(0.5%)	175(0.6%)	383(1.2%)	528(1.7%)	29033(94.4%)	30766 (100 %)	25273.6*	.683
Formal	3105(13.3%)	195(0.8%)	402(1.7%)	1899(8.1%)	10778(46.2%)	6969(29.8%)	23348 (100 %)	25273.6*	.683
Type of Enterprise/ Organisation
Proprietary	400(1.6%)	120(0.5%)	129(0.5%)	287(1.1%)	429(1.7%)	23772(94.6%)	25137 (100 %)	31353.5*	.340
Partnership	49(4.1%)	12(1.0%)	22(1.8%)	72(6.0%)	60(5.0%)	987(82.1%)	1202 (100 %)
Others including domestic workers	42(0.9%)	24(0.5%)	24(0.5%)	24(0.5%)	39(0.9%)	4274(96.5%)	4427 (100 %)
Govt. sector	2238(13.2%)	94(0.6%)	192(1.1%)	1041(6.1%)	9846(58.1%)	3535(20.9%)	16496 (100 %)
Public/Private Ltd. Companies	730(13.8%)	84(1.6%)	176(3.3%)	769(14.6%)	760(14.4%)	2761(52.3%)	5280 (100 %)
Co-operative societies and NGO	137 (12.2%)	17(1.5%)	34(3.0%)	89(7.9%)	172(15.3%)	673(60.0%)	1122 (100 %)

Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis show the percentage of row total

2. * P< .01

Source: Compiled from NSS (2011-12). Employment and unemployment schedule 10, 68^th round unit level data, CD- Rom. Delhi: Ministry of statistics and programme implementation, Government of India.