The governments of Gujarat and Rajasthan appear to have made a case, if not vigorously, for transferring labour issues from the concurrent list (where Union and states can both legislate, but Union law overrides state law) to the state list (where states have the sole legislative authority). Both are BJP-run governments and they werent speaking from a party consensus: their 1998-2004 government made no such move and, in fact, used its authority in these matters much like all its predecessors. For that matter, the stand of the pro-BJP trade union on these issues status quois no different from the Left ones.
This is, however, an issue we repeatedly return to, of allowing states more leeway in the things that affect them. Jammu & Kashmir and the northeastern states are the most visible instances in this regard, but it is a pity to think of devolution only after the pressure cooker of expectations has exploded or threatens to do so. Theres a positive side to this, if each state is allowed to experiment with its own version of what constitutes reforms, instead of having the basic mould set in Delhi. The law would be more responsive to local conditions and more easy to change, in whichever direction. If diversity is our plus point, why not use it