India's registered manufacturing sector employs a little over 2 crore people.
That number should stop you. India's workforce is somewhere above 50 crore. Manufacturing as a whole — counting every workshop, every unregistered unit, every household enterprise — employs several crore more. Yet the entire registered factory sector, the part with inspectors and provident fund and formal wage records, accounts for around two crore jobs.
That is not a failure of the survey. It is the survey's most important finding, and it has been its most important finding for decades. On 30 September 2026, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation released the results of the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) for 2024-25, and the figure is worth understanding before any of the growth rates are.
What ASI counts
The ASI covers factories registered under Sections 2(m)(i) and 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948, where a manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(k) is carried on. Those two clauses set the boundary:
- Section 2(m)(i) — premises where ten or more workers are, or were on any day in the preceding twelve months, working, and where a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power.
- Section 2(m)(ii) — premises where twenty or more workers are so working, and manufacturing is carried on without the aid of power.
The survey additionally covers bidi and cigar establishments registered under the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.
So a workshop with nine workers and an electric lathe is not in the ASI frame. Neither is a nineteen-worker unit without power. Everything below those thresholds is invisible to this survey — and in India, "everything below those thresholds" is most of manufacturing by employment.
That is why the ASI must be read alongside, not instead of, the surveys that measure the rest. The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE) covers exactly the territory ASI excludes, and the contrast between the two is the single most useful thing a student can carry about Indian industrial statistics — the shape of it is set out in how India maps its own informal economy and in what the ASUSE survey measures.
ASI is conducted for the financial year — here April 2024 to March 2025 — with fieldwork for this round running October 2025 to June 2026. Note that lag: the data describe a year that ended eighteen months before publication. ASI is a structural survey, not a current indicator; for monthly movement you read the Index of Industrial Production instead.
The 2024-25 results
| Indicator | 2024-25 growth |
|---|---|
| Number of establishments | +2.64% (2.60 lakh → 2.67 lakh) |
| Industrial output | +7.81% |
| Gross Value Added | +9.59% (₹2,458.3 thousand crore → ₹2,694.2 thousand crore) |
| Fixed capital | +10.54% |
| Invested capital | +11.10% |
| Total employment | +7.19% (over 14 lakh added, crossing 2 crore) |
| Emoluments | +12.08% |
| Net income | +9.68% |
| Net profit | +7.73% |
Three relationships in that table carry more information than the individual numbers.
GVA grew faster than output (9.59% against 7.81%). Gross Value Added is output minus the cost of inputs. When GVA outpaces output, the sector is retaining a larger share of what it produces — input costs rose more slowly than revenue, margins widened at the value-added level. For a sector where the complaint about Indian manufacturing is usually that it performs low-value assembly on imported inputs, that gap is the encouraging number in the release.
Emoluments grew faster than employment (12.08% against 7.19%). Total wages rose about five percentage points faster than headcount, which means average earnings per worker rose — the wage bill is not simply being spread across more people. This is the figure that distinguishes genuine formalisation from job-splitting.
Employment grew faster than establishments (7.19% against 2.64%). Average factory size increased. Combined with fixed capital up 10.54%, the picture is of existing units expanding rather than a proliferation of small new ones — which is the direction Indian manufacturing policy has been trying to push for a decade, against the grain of the "missing middle".
Where the manufacturing actually is
The top five industries — basic metal, motor vehicles, chemicals and chemical products, pharmaceutical products, and food products — together contributed more than 45% of total manufacturing GVA.
That list is worth memorising, and worth thinking about. Two of the five are heavy intermediates (basic metal, chemicals), one is a large assembly industry with deep domestic supply chains (motor vehicles), one is India's globally competitive science-based industry (pharmaceuticals), and one is agro-processing (food products). Electronics, despite its prominence in policy and in the export statistics, does not make the top five by value added — which is precisely the point made in why Make in India's headline share has not moved: assembly generates output and exports while capturing a thin slice of value.
By GVA, the top five states are Maharashtra (15.92%), Gujarat (14.10%), Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh — together over 54% of national manufacturing GVA, and 53.30% of all establishments.
By employment, the top five are Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana — over 56% of total manufacturing employment.
By number of establishments, the order changes again: Tamil Nadu (41,221), Gujarat (33,084), Maharashtra (27,379).
Compare those three rankings carefully, because the differences are the analysis. Tamil Nadu leads on establishments and on employment; Maharashtra leads on GVA. A state with the most factories and the most factory workers is not the state producing the most value added. That tells you Tamil Nadu's industrial base is broader and more labour-intensive, while Maharashtra's is more capital-intensive and higher up the value chain — and it tells you that "which state is India's manufacturing leader" has no single answer until you specify the measure.
Note also Haryana appearing in the employment list but not the GVA list, and Karnataka the reverse. The same logic applies.
What the release does not settle
Two cautions belong in an honest reading.
First, establishment counts are not firm counts. ASI's unit is the factory, and a company operating five factories appears five times. Growth in establishments can therefore reflect existing firms adding plants rather than new firms entering.
Second, and more important: a good year in registered manufacturing does not tell you about manufacturing as a whole. The registered sector growing employment by 7.19% is genuinely good news for the roughly two crore people in it. Whether workers are moving into the registered sector from the unregistered one — which is what formalisation actually means, and what would show up as a rising share rather than a rising level — requires putting the ASI and ASUSE numbers side by side. The ASI release does not do that, and nor should it; it is a survey of one sector reporting on that sector.
The honest summary is that India's organised factory sector had a strong 2024-25 on every major indicator, with the composition of the growth — value added ahead of output, wages ahead of headcount, capital ahead of both — pointing in the direction policy has been aiming at. The sector remains small relative to India's workforce, and that is the structural fact no single good year changes.
🔑 Revision block
- ASI 2024-25 results released 30 September 2026 by MoSPI. Reference period April 2024 to March 2025; fieldwork October 2025 to June 2026.
- Coverage: factories registered under Sections 2(m)(i) (10+ workers with power) and 2(m)(ii) (20+ workers without power) of the Factories Act, 1948; manufacturing process defined in Section 2(k). Also bidi and cigar establishments under the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.
- ASI measures the registered / organised factory sector only. Units below those thresholds are measured by ASUSE.
- Establishments: 2.60 lakh → 2.67 lakh (+2.64%). Highest: Tamil Nadu 41,221, Gujarat 33,084, Maharashtra 27,379.
- GVA: ₹2,458.3 thousand crore → ₹2,694.2 thousand crore (+9.59%).
- Employment: +7.19%, over 14 lakh added, crossing 2 crore total.
- Industrial output +7.81% · fixed capital +10.54% · invested capital +11.10% · emoluments +12.08% · net income +9.68% · net profit +7.73%.
- Three key relationships: GVA grew faster than output (margin widening); emoluments faster than employment (wage per worker rose); employment faster than establishments (average factory size rose).
- Top 5 industries by GVA: basic metal, motor vehicles, chemicals and chemical products, pharmaceutical products, food products — over 45% of manufacturing GVA.
- Top 5 States by GVA: Maharashtra (15.92%), Gujarat (14.10%), Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh — over 54% of GVA and 53.30% of establishments.
- Top 5 States by employment: Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana — over 56% of manufacturing employment.
- Tamil Nadu leads on establishments and employment; Maharashtra leads on GVA — labour-intensive versus capital-intensive industrial bases.
- Gross Value Added = output minus cost of inputs. ASI feeds National Accounts Statistics.
🎯 Practice MCQs
Q1. The Annual Survey of Industries covers factories registered under which Act? (a) The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (b) The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (c) The Factories Act, 1948 (d) The Companies Act, 2013
→ (c) ASI's frame is factories registered under Sections 2(m)(i) and 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948. The IDR Act governs industrial licensing, and the MSMED Act classifies enterprises by investment and turnover — neither defines the ASI frame.
Q2. Under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, the employment thresholds for a 'factory' are: (a) 10 or more workers with power, or 20 or more without power (b) 20 or more workers with power, or 10 or more without power (c) 10 or more workers in all cases (d) 20 or more workers in all cases
→ (a) 10 or more with the aid of power under 2(m)(i); 20 or more without the aid of power under 2(m)(ii). Reversing the two is the standard trap, and the logic to remember is that power-using premises are riskier and so are regulated at a lower threshold.
Q3. 'Gross Value Added' in the ASI is best defined as: (a) Total sales revenue of the factory (b) Output minus the cost of inputs (c) Net profit after tax (d) Output plus indirect taxes
→ (b) GVA is output minus intermediate consumption — the value the factory itself adds. It is distinct from output, from net profit and from turnover, and ASI reports all of them separately.
Q4. According to ASI 2024-25, total employment in the registered manufacturing sector crossed: (a) 1 crore (b) 5 crore (c) 10 crore (d) 2 crore
→ (d) Employment crossed 2 crore, after adding more than 14 lakh workers — a growth of 7.19%. The modest absolute level reflects that ASI measures only the registered factory sector.
Q5. In ASI 2024-25, which State recorded the highest share of manufacturing Gross Value Added? (a) Tamil Nadu (b) Gujarat (c) Maharashtra (d) Uttar Pradesh
→ (c) Maharashtra, at 15.92%, followed by Gujarat at 14.10%. Tamil Nadu leads on the number of establishments and on employment — the distinction this question is built on.
Q6. Which of the following was NOT among the top five industries by manufacturing GVA in ASI 2024-25? (a) Basic metal (b) Computer, electronic and optical products (c) Motor vehicles (d) Food products
→ (b) The top five were basic metal, motor vehicles, chemicals and chemical products, pharmaceutical products and food products. Electronics, despite its share of output and exports, does not appear — a direct illustration of assembly generating output while capturing little value added.
Q7. In ASI 2024-25, emoluments grew by 12.08% while employment grew by 7.19%. This implies that: (a) Average earnings per worker increased (b) The number of factories fell (c) Labour productivity declined (d) The wage bill was spread across more workers at lower pay
→ (a) Total wages rising faster than headcount means average earnings per worker rose. Had employment grown faster than emoluments, the opposite inference — job-splitting at lower pay — would follow.
Q8. Manufacturing units employing fewer than ten workers with power are measured by: (a) The Index of Industrial Production (b) The Annual Survey of Industries (c) The Periodic Labour Force Survey (d) The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises
→ (d) ASUSE covers unincorporated enterprises below the Factories Act thresholds — precisely the territory ASI excludes. The IIP is a monthly volume index, and the PLFS measures the labour force rather than enterprises.
Q9. That GVA grew by 9.59% while industrial output grew by 7.81% in 2024-25 indicates that: (a) Input costs rose faster than revenue (b) The sector retained a larger share of the value of what it produced (c) Exports fell as a share of output (d) Employment growth outpaced capital formation
→ (b) Value added outpacing output means intermediate input costs grew more slowly than revenue — margins widened at the value-added level, and the sector kept more of what it produced.
Q10. The principal reason ASI results are not a current indicator of industrial activity is that: (a) The survey is conducted only once every five years (b) It reports only on public sector factories (c) Its reference year ends well before publication, with fieldwork spanning several months (d) It excludes the chemicals and metals industries
→ (c) ASI 2024-25 covers April 2024 to March 2025, with fieldwork from October 2025 to June 2026 — so the data describe a year that ended long before release. It is a structural survey; for month-to-month movement the Index of Industrial Production is the relevant series.
📋 How this gets asked (PYQ pattern)
Statistical surveys have become a reliable question source in CDS, and they are asked in three ways.
The first is survey-to-subject matching, and this is where most marks are available. ASI covers registered factories; ASUSE covers unincorporated enterprises; the PLFS covers the labour force; the IIP is a monthly volume index; the ASI and IIP both concern industry but measure different things over different periods. Learn each survey by what it counts and how often, and the matching questions resolve themselves.
The second is conducting agency. MoSPI through the National Statistics Office conducts the ASI, ASUSE, PLFS and IIP. The RBI produces KLEMS. The Labour Bureau has its own series. Questions naming a statistic and asking who produces it are common and cheap.
The third is definitional economics: output, Gross Value Added, net profit, invested capital, fixed capital, emoluments. These appear in the same table and are routinely swapped in options. GVA in particular — output minus intermediate consumption — is worth knowing precisely, because it is the bridge between a firm-level survey and national income accounting.
A fourth pattern is worth anticipating from this release specifically: state rankings that differ by measure. When a survey produces one ranking by value added and a different one by employment, examiners use the discrepancy. A question asking for "the leading manufacturing state" is incomplete unless it specifies the measure — and recognising that is itself the skill being tested.
Preparing for CDS/OTA? With any Indian statistic, ask three questions before memorising the number: who collects it, what population it covers, and what period it refers to. Coverage is where almost all the confusion in Indian economic data lives. Build the base with our CDS/OTA economy notes, follow the daily CDS current affairs, and prepare with our faculty in the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
✍️ Written by Aditya Tiwari — Economy and international relations faculty at The Cavalier. Reviewed by the Cavalier Faculty Desk.