M K Pandhe

General Secretary, CITU

WHEN YOU CONSIDER ANY REPORT, it should be taken in its totality. In  that sense, the report of the Second National Commission on Labour  hits the working class very badly. There are a few paragraphs in the report which show sympathy to the conditions of the workings class, but other than that it is an affront to the workers. Whatever rights the trade union movement has achieved through years of long, bitter struggles are proposed to be snatched away to suit the interests of the employers.

The terms of reference of the Commission itself was not appropriate and obviously the government did not have the trade unions in mind when the terms of reference was prepared. During the First National Commission on Labour, the government had consulted the trade unions before finalising the terms of references. This time, there were no consultations. The government itself decided the terms of reference and that is why the report is totally anti-working class. The terms of reference  has underlined the outcome of the report.

The recommendations give the employers the right to hire and fire. On issues like layoff and retrenchment, the report suggests that prior permission is not necessary in an establishment of small employment size. Only those employing 300 or more workers, where layoff exceeds a period of one month, should obtain a post facto approval of the government. In India, more than 85 per cent of establishments employ less than 300 workers. How can workers’ interests be protected if the ‘hire and fire’ policy is implemented? It will only lead to abolition of permanent jobs and will result in a tremendous increase in contractualisation.

The report questions the worker’s right to strike. Gherao and go-slow are considered as strikes. The Commission even recommends punishment.  Strike is the most powerful weapon in the hands of workers to show their discontent.  If the recommendations are implemented even trade union activity will be put in the straight jacket. It seems all our achievements since independence have been nullified. The report even questions the collective bargaining rights of workers. The sole motive of the Commission is to satisfy foreign multinational companies and to get more foreign capital in. The CITU is totally opposed to the report and will boycott it.

Chandidas Sinha

President, INTUC

PEOPLE WHO DID NOT COOPERATE with the Commission do not have the right to comment and reject its recommendations. The report is not totally objectionable. There are areas where modifications are required. The entire report is not anti-labour and anti-working class.

The Commission has suggested that the present system of Industrial Tribunal should be replaced with an Industrial Relations Commission consisting of three members - one with trade union experience, another with industrial experience and a presiding officer from the judiciary. Such a Commission was also recommended by the First National Commission on Labour. It further says that all industrial disputes should be disposed of within three hearings by the Industrial Relations Commission. The INTUC considers this a good pro-labour recommendation.

The recomendation that a strike notice can be issued only if 51 per cent of the workers favour the strike is welcome. If a strike ballot comes no one can indulge in unreasonable and prejudiced strikes. There are recommendations that have to be discussed and debated. But the report is not derogatory, it should not be rejected.

Guru Das Dasgupta

General Secretary, AITUC

THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION itself was lopsided. Only two central trade unions - INTUC and BMS - were represented and others were excluded. The AITUC has taken a decision to completely reject the recommendations.

The recommendations gravely affect the interests of the working class in the country. It has prepared the report on dotted lines in accordance with the diktats of the government and in conformity with its policies endangering the capacity of collective bargaining of workers.

Indian working class is under attack as never before. The Commission was set up at a time when labour laws are violated by the minute. When there is need for enforcement of labour laws, the Commission suggests methods to change laws.  The Commission has taken the reverse route of diluting labour laws in order to ensure unhindered implementation of the policy of ‘hire and fire’.

The Commission has accepted the concept of globalisation in its present form. It  refuses to look into the human distress arising out of unprecedented loss of jobs, wage cuts, decline in wage levels and withdrawal of benefits.

The definition of a worker is to be changed by putting a ceiling of Rs. 25,000 monthly salary when the knowledge-based industry is growing. The report characterises supervisors as part of the management and states that management looks after their interests.  The ILO has recognised the rights of the scientists, technicians and managers to organise and to collective bargaining.

The Commission has made it compulsory to hold secret ballot for strike and only if 51 per cent vote in its favour that the strike it will be considered legal. Right to strike is the fundamental right of the worker and AITUC strongly feels that the Commission has no power to curtail this right of the workers.

The Commission do have a lot of synthetic tears for the unorganised workers who have no bargaining power. It wants to facilitate the rule of the capital without protecting the interests of the workers.  There are many social security schemes for the welfare of the workers, but where will the money for their implementation  come from? In other words, there is no thought given to it at all. We do not believe in this Commission and we totally boycott it. What we require is another Commission.

Hamshubhai Dave

President, BMS

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION is a mixed bag. Reports of several previous committees such as the ‘’employment opportunity’` report of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, ‘’expenditure reforms`’ of the Geethakrishnan Committee and the Rakesh Mohan Committee on privatisation in railways were instrumental in propagating the capitalist ideology and curtailing the rights of workers.

BMS rejects many recommendations of the Commission which do not have any rationale. The Commission recommends removal of prior permission for layoff and retrenchment. For closure, it has raised the limit from 100 workers to 300 workers. Removing restrictions on retrenchment is to accept the principle of ‘hire and fire` as demanded by employers’ organisations. The VRS and disinvestment is nothing but retrenchment. The need of the hour is job security. We strongly oppose the ‘hire and fire’ policy.

A Reserve Bank of India survey on sickness in industries reveals that management failure contributes 65 per cent of the cause and labour strikes only 3 per cent. Strangely, the Commission highlights the failure as mainly due to strikes. Indian industrialists want to shift the failures of the administration to the workers and the Commission stands by them. Action should be taken action against employers who try to close industries and divert funds.

The existing benefits of workers are the results of long struggles. Any move to restrict strikes is undemocratic. Even small unrecognised trade unions should not be deprived of their right to strike and the right to collective bargaining.

There are many wonderful recommendations by the Commission to protect the unorganised workers. If these are implemented the workers will be benefitted.

M Subbu

General Secretary, TMKTS

THE SECOND NATIONAL COMMISSION on Labour seeks to undo the past.  It seeks to take away in one stroke, the rights that the working class have won  historically and negate ongoing struggles by pandering to the forces of private and global capital.

It is removing the protection for security of tenure and encourages     contract labour in all areas of employment. It will remove all restrictions on employers with regard to retrenchment, layoff and closure leading to flexible labour and ‘hire and fire’ policy. It will weaken the collective bargaining strength of workers.

It is also trying to bring a wedge between organised and unorganised workers by bringing an `umbrella legislation`.  The Commission is trying to link the payment of minimum wages to the industry`s ability to pay.   It is restricting the democratic trade union functioning and undermining the bargaining power of workers.  In one sentence in the name of labour, the Commission is serving the agenda of capital and not workers.

The unorganised sector cannot be wished away.  In absolute terms, this sector contributes more to the economy and employment in India.  The National Accounts Statistics report of 1995 confirms that nearly 65 per cent of the national income is contributed by the unorganised sector which constitutes 93 per cent of the total labour population in the country.

Two points which will have an adverse impact on unorganised workers:  The Commission, by not making a distinction between wage labour and self-employed, has not talked about regulation of employment or minimum guaranteed days of employment.  The Commission belittles the role of trade unions in unorganised sector by giving all powers to government and bureaucracy and has not fixed any national minimum wages.

I strongly feel that in the implementation process, the trade unions in the unorganised sector should be given the power to identify workers for registration  and workers’ representatives should be included on the board of companies. This will make all decisions taken at various levels transparent. The workers’ representatives should be given the right to inspect and bring defaults to the notice of the board.

Umraomal Purohit

General Secretary, HMS

WHEN THE COMMISSION WAS APPOINTED there was a proposal from trade unions that it should be boycotted. HMS did not boycott it, instead we have put in our views. We were not happy with the terms of reference of the Commission. How can we expect a pro-labour report from a Commission, when its one and only full-time member is an ex-member of the industry(Maratha Chamber of Commerce)?

The report is a mixed bag. Certain recommendations are very good and acceptable. But will those be implemented? Where will the funds come from for its implementation?

Automation and new technologies have led to unemployment. The Commission has now come up with increase in working hours. The need is less hours of work to allow the labour to participate more in the society. Increasing productivity is understandable. But increasing working hours cannot be thought of. The ILO Recommendation No. 116 states that where the normal weekly hours of work are 48 or more,  measures for a progressive reduction of hours of work to 40 hours a week should be taken.

According to the corporate lobby, the employers should have the right to retrench workers regardless of the size of employment and that too without the prior permission of the government. The Commission recommends the same. It proposes that only establishments employing 300 or more workers should be brought under the coverage of the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act pertaining to closure. The recommendation is anti-labour. Employers in their greed for more profits are bound to resort to large scale retrenchment and closures.

The Commission has well taken the proposals for provision of social security benefits to unorganised workers. The workers in the unorganised sector do not earn enough money to make both ends meet. In such a situation, they cannot dream of savings. The social security measures, if implemented, will be beneficial to the workers. But where will the funds for its implementation come from? There are chances that it will remain as recommendations.

According to Amit Mitra

Secretary General, FICCI

THE COMMISSION`S RECOMMENDATIONS suggesting changes in the labour policy have come at the right time. The FICCI wholeheartedly welcomes the recommendations to meet the new situations brought about by the global economy. Competitive labour policy is being used by countries to attract investment and create employment avenues. India with its obsolete labour policy, can no longer wait and see, but will have to join the race.

There are many things that have to be amended in the report. The Commission says that prior permission is necessary for layoff and retrenchment if an establishment engages more than 300 workers. The FICCI strongly feels that this should be amended and the number should be revised to 1,000 workers. The industrialist invests a lot of money while starting an establishment. If he feels that that he is incurring losses, he should be in a position to close down his unit. After all it is his money that is being invested.

According to the Commission, the compensation for retrenchment and closure varies from 30 days to 60 days salary depending on whether it is a sick industry, ongoing industry with a view to become viable, non-profit making organisation, etc. We feel as for the payment of compensation it should be 30 days salary for each completed year of service, uniformly. Further, when the statutory compensation is paid, there ought to be a bar against taking the issue to any court/adjudication, for payment of higher compensation or questioning the legality of the closure and retrenchment.

The FICCI feels, that the process of strike ballot should be made more transparent and the support of 75 per cent of workmen of an establishment should be considered before issuing the strike notice.

The contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act should be suitably modified to provide only for regulating and not for abolishing contract labour. The responsibilities of the principal employer should be to ensure that the contractor conforms to all rules and regulations in respect of his workmen and beyond that there should not be any responsibility for the principal employer. As regards wages, the stipulation of the Commission that contract workers should be paid at the rate of regular workers in the establishment doing comparable work or the lowest salary in the corresponding grade is not justified. The wages of permanent workers in an establishment in any category are fixed not merely for the work done, but also for seniority, skill, etc and therefore the same wages cannot be extended to contract labour.

The Commission recommends legal aid to workers and trade unions from public funds to facilitate them to hire legal counsels. The recommendation is objectionable and not acceptable. If implemented, it could encourage mushrooming growth of litigations. Additionally, unregistered trade unions should not have the right of collective negotiation or to declare a strike.