Lok Sabha gave its final nod for the much-awaited and much-debated bill — Unorganised Workers` Social Security Bill 2008 — during its session on 17 December 2008. Although parliamentarians debated a number of amendments to the bill, it has been passed in largely the same form as the bill passed by the Rajya Sabha on 17 October 2008, with the addition of a new section that suggests provisions for state governments to set up workers` facilitation centres to disseminate information on available social security schemes, to register workers with the district administrations and to issue identity cards. The bill is now awaiting the assent of the President of India. According to the Indian Constitution, all legislative proposals are to be brought in the form of bills before the parliament. A bill is a statute in draft and becomes law once it has received the approval of both the houses of parliament and the assent of the President of India.

Often classified as part of the `informal` economy, the unorganised sector constitutes the largest, but the most invisible, part of the economically active workforce in India. According to government estimates, the number of unorganised workers is approximately four million, that is, about 94 per cent of the working force of the country.

The campaign for obtaining social security as a right for the unorganised workforce in India gained momentum when it appeared in the agenda of both organised and unorganised trade unions as well as of civil society organisations and concerned individuals. The government of India, though acquiescent about legislation, was not agreeable to work towards formulating a law that would provide social security as a right to the workforce. A clear evidence of this dilly-dallying attitude is the reluctance shown till date in ratifying ILO Convention 102. Incidentally, New Delhi witnessed a high-level social security convention on 19-20 May, 2008, jointly organised by the government of India and the ILO, with a broad objective of identifying some policy approaches that countries can use to extend the social security coverage for their workforce and make it more effective, with a particular focus on workers in the informal economy and unorganised sectors. The Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), is the flagship of all ILO social security conventions because it is the only international instrument based on basic social security principles, which establishes globally agreed-upon minimum standards for all nine branches of social security, namely, medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, old-age benefit, employment-injury benefit, family benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit and survivor`s benefit.

The government of India has accepted the international commitment that arises from the ratification of the Covenant of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights of the United Nations. This covenant, inter alia, recognises the right of everyone to social security including social insurance. India has also ratified some conventions of the ILO, including the Workmen`s Compensation (Occupational Diseases) – No. 18 and revised Convention No. 42 of 1934; Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) – No. 19 of 1925; and Equality of Treatment (Social Security) – No. 1 & No. 8 of 1962. However, when it comes to conferring social security as a right to the workforce, the government inevitably shows its indeterminate character, and the present nod to the Bill is a typical example of such an evasive act by the government.

The Rajya Sabha had witnessed heated debates when the bill was tabled in October. Although CPM MP, Tapan Sen proposed amendments to the bill, these were rejected. The substantial changes suggested by the standing committee on labour, and those raised by trade unions and campaign organisations such as Social Security Now (SSN) were also not incorporated in the bill.

The trade unions and campaign organisations had called for an informed debate in the parliament before the bill was passed by Lok Sabha. These repeated requests fell on deaf ears and the government decided to go ahead with the bill in its original form. All the MPs, who proposed amendments, had cautioned that the present bill will not serve the purpose for which it was envisioned, and also called attention to the fact that the constructive suggestions of the central trade unions have been totally ignored in the bill. The standing committee`s recommendation to cover all unorganised workers under the concept of national minimum social security benefits has also been ignored.

“The unorganised workers are the creators of wealth, but they themselves are living in a pathetic condition. It is very much disappointing that this bill is more like a statement of welfare schemes than a measure for really providing social security,” says Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy, the chairperson of the Standing Cmmittee on Labour. According to him, the bill has several flaws. “As a matter of fact, most of the security welfare measures are being given to insurance companies. Insurance companies are not created in this country for social service. The workers from 18 years to 58 years of age are covered under life insurance and medical insurance. In spite of repeated efforts by the Labour Ministry, the insurance companies are not agreeing to increase the age limit to 70 years for the coverage. That means, at a time when the worker is vulnerable to death, they are not ready to give that coverage,” he added.

The bill states that a national board and state boards are to be constituted to review and supervise welfare schemes. Earlier, when submitting its report, the standing committee on labour had recommended that the boards should have some administrative teeth so that they can frame rules and implement them. Currently, these boards will function only as advisory bodies.

“The bill does not confer social security as a right for unorganised workers. The benefits are enunciated as schemes, which could be changed at will by the government,” opines J John, Editor, Labour File, and a member of Social Security Now. “The bill does not provide for creating a social security fund as recommended by the parliamentary standing committee. Instead, it provides private insurance-based schemes. The bill also does not include unpaid women workers and unpaid family members in the definition of `unorganised worker`, and livelihood contingencies (land, forest, and water resources) are also not brought within the ambit of social security,” he points out.

“We are not all satisfied with the bill,” says John. “Ninety per cent of the unorganised workers will be excluded from benefiting from the bill since the benefits and protections of social security would apply only to BPL workers. Besides, the quantum of the benefits suggested – Rs 200 per month as pension, Rs 500 as maternity benefit, medical care up to Rs 30,000 per year per family – is greatly inadequate.” Social Security Now will be calling for its working group meeting at the earliest in order to chalk out further action as well as to see how the Act could be conceived as a charter for workers` rights.

Other campaign organisations and the central trade unions are also geared up to see how the Act can be meaningfully implemented. “Though we had a lot of issues to raise, we worked on amendments based on the suggestions of the Standing Committee on Labour. Yet, in spite of their apparent importance, all the suggestions were voted out,” says MK Pandhe, president, CITU. “We are convening a meeting of the sponsoring committee of trade unions in order to chalk out further actions,” he adds.

“It is better to have some food than have nothing at all,” says SN Thakur, national secretary, AITUC. “Though we tried to push forward our amendments, these were voted out. Now, since the bill is passed, we will opt for action plans to see that the schemes are framed with proper funds. Highlighting the drawbacks of the bill, we are planning to hold a demonstration in front of the parliament on 12 February 2009,” he informs.

“We had given in writing to the minister to kindly go ahead with the bill,” says AD Nagpal, national secretary of Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). “We do have reservations against the bill, and we had raised the issue many a time, but what we strongly feel is that it is better to have a legal base framed first, so that there is something to fight for to make amendments in future,” he adds.

The bill seeks to constitute a National Social Security Advisory Board to recommend suitable welfare schemes for different sections of unorganised sector workers. Upon consideration of these recommendations, the centre may notify suitable welfare schemes relating to life and disability cover, health and maternity benefits, old-age protection, or any other benefits. Likewise, the state governments can constitute an advisory committee at their level.

The Minister for Labour introduced The Unorganised Sector Workers` Social Security bill 2007 (Bill No. LXVII of 2007), in the Lok Sabha on 10 September 2007. Subsequently, on 20 September 2007, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour by the speaker of the Lok Sabha for examination and report.