The months from September to December 2007 saw the widely anticipated legislation on social security for unorganised workers being submitted in Parliament, and the release of a report of the Standing Committee on Labour reviewing the Bill.

The Unorganised Sector Workers Social Security Bill 2007 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha at the sine die closing of the monsoon session of Parliament on 10 September. The Bill provides for the establishment of Social Security Advisory Boards at the national and state levels, which will recommend suitable schemes for `different sections` of unorganised sector workers, advise the government on administrative matters, monitor implementation, review the progress of the registration of workers and the issuance of social security cards, review expenditure, and other unspecified tasks. Schemes may be formulated by the central government relating to life and disability, health and maternity benefits, old age protection, etc. The state governments may formulate schemes relating to provident fund, employment injury benefit, housing, education for children, skill up-gradation, funeral assistance and old age homes. The Bill also provides for the registration of all unorganised workers and the issuance of identity cards. It includes a list of 11 existing schemes: National Old Age Pension Scheme, National Family Benefit Scheme, National Maternity Benefit Scheme, Mahatma Gandhi Bunkar Bima Yojana, Health Insurance Scheme for Handloom Weaver, Scheme for pension to Master Crafts persons, Group Accident Insurance Scheme for Active Fishermen, Saving-cum-Relief for the Fishermen, Janshree Bima Yojana, Aam Admi Bima Yojana, and the Swasthya Bima Yojana. The types and the number of schemes to be enacted and sustained ultimately remain at the discretion of the government concerned. The central government has indicated that it plans to focus on covering all Below Poverty Line (BPL) workers in the first five years, and eventually all unorganised sector workers.

The Bill is not, however, the legislation that was widely hoped for. It does not include provisions for regulating working conditions or regularising employment of unorganised workers. Somewhat surprising is that the Bill does not include many of the recommended protections included in the draft Bills of the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), which has been investigating and consulting on this issue for some years. These measures include eight-hour working days with half-hour breaks; one paid day of rest in a week; the right to organise; a national minimum wage for all employments; penal interest for deferred payment of wages; protection from sexual harassment; and provision of child care and basic amenities at the workplace.

The Bill submitted is more or less identical to a plan earlier approved by the Union Cabinet on 24 May. Some Central Trade Unions have noted the complete disregard of the government of the inputs provided to the NCEUS, and the tri-partite processes and discussions on social security for unorganised workers. The Minister for Labour has promised to involve all stakeholders in the implementation of the Bill.

The 25th report of the Standing Labour Committee, chaired by Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy, reviews the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) Bill. It presents comments on and suggests amendments to the Bill. It also includes an alternative draft Bill to address the various shortcomings of the MoLE Bill, revealed during its consultations with stakeholders.

On 8 October, the Committee held a preliminary briefing with the representatives of the MoLE and the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) on the provisions of the Bill. The Committee invited suggestions from all former Union Labour Ministers, Labour Ministers of the respective state governments/union territories, heads of major national/regional political parties of the country experts, organisations and individuals.

On 16 October, the Committee heard the views of the representatives of the major Central Trade Unions and associations working for the welfare of the agriculture workers and workers of the unorganised sector. Those attending included representatives from Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), United Trade Union Congress (UTUC), National Front of Indian Trade Unions (NFITU), All India Agricultural Workers` Union (AIAWU), Bhartiya Khet Mazdoor Union (BKMU).

On 25 October, representatives of Employers` Groups and various NGOs working for these workers deposed before the Committee on various provisions pertaining to the Bill. Representatives of the former came from the Confederation of Indian Industry, All India Organisation in Service of Small Scale Industries, and the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises. NGOs working for unorganised workers were represented by the National Campaign Committee for Unorganised Sector Workers, Agricultural Workers Alliances, Nirmala Niketan, and the Cooperative Society of Domestic Workers.

On 5 November, additional trade unions and NGOs expressed their views before the Committee. These included representatives from All India Anganwadi Workers` Federation, All India Rural Health Workers, Bhartiya Krishi Gramin Mazdoor Maha Sangh, New Trade Union Initiative, Social Security Now, National Centre for Labour, and Uttar Pradesh Gramin Mazdoor Sangh. Thereafter, on the same day, the Committee sought certain clarifications on the provisions of the Bill from the representatives of the MoLE.

The general finding was that the definition of the terms `unorganised sector` and `unorganised sector worker` were inadequate; the MoLE Bill adopts a segmented approach to the unorganised workers instead of a universal approach; the objective of social security provision is to be pursued through a number of schemes instead of one statutory scheme; and that the MoLE Bill does not provide for a national minimum level of social security benefits. Emphasis was laid on providing national minimum social security benefits as a matter of right to all unorganised workers, within a defined time frame. Apprehensions were also expressed regarding the nature and scope of the proposed National and State Social Security Advisory Boards because they will not have any power and control over the implementation of the various social security schemes initiated/to be initiated by the union and state governments. As regards funding, the Bill lacks proper and systematic funding pattern. This will ultimately erode the efficacy of the schemes meant for the workers of the unorganised sector. The need was also stressed for the creation of a National Fund with a view to ensure the uninterrupted flow of funds for these schemes.

A representative of the Central Trade Unions noted the possible problem of exclusion of certain workers from social security benefits through the use of a sector, rather than a working, situation-based definition. The representative remarked that `unorganised workers` usually denote non-unionised workers. Such a worker could be found in both the organised and unorganised sectors, and would be excluded from coverage in the former case. The Committee notes that a sector-based definition would exclude informalised workers in the formal sector, including outsourced public sector work, workers in cooperatives and voluntary workers such as anganwadi workers. The Committee recommended that unorganised workers include all workers not covered by the existing laws relating to social security, and also those not covered by existing laws for either sector, such as `voluntary` workers.

The Committee also notes an `urgent need` for separate legislations for agricultural and non-agricultural unorganised workers. It was observed that the separate Bills proposed by the NCEUS, having removed the provisions for livelihood promotion to a broader plan of action while maintaining provisions for employment regulations (which the government Bills have not done), were almost identical. A participant suggested that as an agricultural worker often works off-season in mines, quarries, construction, and other non-agricultural activities, their registration under different Acts may be confusing and may undermine the effectiveness of the provision of social security to workers.

The opinion of the Committee is that that social security measures will be `incomplete` without regulation of employment and conditions of service, which is a significant point for disagreement with the government proposals to date. Many of the participants placed the issue of social security within a broader understanding of security of and through work.

The absence of labour protection was a major issue confronting unorganised workers, and participants brought to the attention of the Committee the lack of provision for expanding such protections as an aspect of social security. Many participants called for all basic labour laws to be extended to cover unorganised workers. Some participants called for a National Minimum Wage to be established, applicable to all workers regardless of sector or type of employment.

The most fundamental issue brought up in discussions was the need to anchor any efforts to provide for social security within the framework of rights. It was noted that the major problem with the Bills proposed earlier by the government was that social security was not being established as a right of workers with corresponding statutory obligations of the state. It was noted in discussions that the right to work requires that the right of access to resources, and the provisions to secure this would be included in any legislation. A persistent feature of the Bills and schemes proposed by the government is the targeting of programmes through BPL and Above Poverty Line (APL) categorisations. Many participants called for the scrapping of this distinction, noting that the provision of social security is a right of workers, and as such there should be no discrimination in its provision – the targeting and phased implementation reveals that the measures proposed are embedded in a welfare provision framework. More generally, it was noted that the acknowledgement of the rights of workers and their security requires addressing the use of informalisation as an employment strategy, and formalisation as a necessary condition to ensure equity and justice for workers.

These findings were used to develop an alternative Bill, drafted by a five-member Drafting Committee constituted on 25 October, comprising Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy, Arjun K. Sengupta, Furkan Ansari, Thawar Chand Gehlot and K. Chandran Pillai.