Commission on labour or against labour?

JULY-SEPTEMBER, 2002

VOL. 3 NO.3

Commission on labour or against labour ?

The NDA Government constituted the Second National Commission on Labour (SNCL), without either proper consultations with the central trade unions or considering their views. The composition of, as well as the terms of reference to, the Commission was mainly intended to kick start the labour law reforms, which the employer class had been clamouring for since long. The former Finance Minister, Yashwant Sinha - a reformer in a hurry - would not wait for the Commission to complete its job. He announced major amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour Act, in his budget speech 2001-2002. During the Indian Labour Conference on 18th May 2002, the Prime Minister turned down a fervent plea, even from the saffron brand trade union (BMS), to hold back the labour law changes pending the report of the Commission on Labour. Yet, things did not exactly go the way Vajpayee Government wanted, as other matters dominated Parliamentary business. And at last, the SNCL completed its job and presented its report to the Prime Minister on 29th June, 2002.

The Report, which runs into 1470 pages - as one pink paper daily noted - has not been made public, nor copies of it furnished to the central trade unions even by end August, 2002. Reason? The incumbent Labour Minister, Sahib Singh Verma, assured a former Minister, Ramoowalia on the floor of the Parliament that the SNCL Report would first be tabled in the Parliament, before being made public. But, the scam a day, kept Parliament business away, washing out the Monsoon Session. There was neither monsoon nor session and the Commission Report was not tabled. The Ministry of Labour is knocking the doors of the Presiding Officers of the two Houses of Parliament for permission to reach copies of the Report to the MPs and make it public thereafter. This exercise is yet to take off.

Meanwhile, the media has come out with several stories on the SNCL Report. One newspaper declared in print that it had in its possession a copy of the Report. Employers’ organisations have planned workshops and seminars to debate the Report. As such it appears that the Report had selectively been made public. We also could gain access to the contents of the Report, at least in bits and parts. To present an overview of the Report, we can only state that it comprises the recommendations of the National Commission not ‘on labour’ but “against labour.”

As scores of our functionaries and activists at various levels have been seeking information on the Report of the SNCL, we are trying to present in this issue, at least, certain highlights thereof. A detailed analysis and comment has necessarily to wait till we get an opportunity to have free access to the Report and turn its pages.

COMMISSION DISTRESSED

The appendices to the Report make some interesting revelations. The chairman of the SNCL appeared as much aggrieved by the budget speech of Yashwant Sinha, as the trade union leadership, which came out with denunciation. Ravindra Varma, Chairman, SNCL, wrote to the Prime Minister on 7th March 2001, a week after the budget presentation conveying ‘the very grave mood of introspection and sense of distress in the minds of most of the members of the Commission and its study teams after the budget speech’. The letter, inter alia, read as:

"The Finance Minister announced that the Government had decided to introduce legislation to amend the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act in the current Budget session of Parliament. The very fact that the announcement came in an unusual and unprecedented manner, from the Finance Minister, and he not only indicated the possible direction of policy but also the specifics of the amendments and the schemes that were going to be introduced, has given edge to the apprehensions that are being articulated both by some members of the Commission and by many concerned groups.

“We thought that since the Government itself had appointed the Commission and asked it to review all existing legislation including the Industrial Disputes Act, the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, etc, it would have waited for the report of the Commission, or if it felt that urgency warranted immediate amendment, asked the Commission for an interim report on the amendments that were considered necessary. We deeply regret that both these alternatives were ignored, thereby giving an opportunity for sceptics and critics to say that the Government’s mind was already made up, and the Commission, therefore, had no relevance. Unfortunately this situation has made it possible for many groups to cast doubts on the credibility and utility of the Commission and say that our report has already been pre-empted, even while we had to struggle hard and almost overcome the attacks on our credibility. Some distinguished members of our study teams have also expressed their deep concern, and asked whether, if the role of the Commission was really over and if the questions that were entrusted to us had already been settled in the Government’s mind, there was any need for them to continue. “

The letter concluded by seeking the guidance from the Prime Minister that would enable him (Ravindra Varma) to assure all concerned that the Government still wanted them to continue and complete the work entrusted to them. A guidance that never came!

A DERISIVE COMMENT

Despite carrying such a distress in their minds, the Commission chose to record derisive comments on those trade unions, including the CITU, which were forced not to cooperate with the Commission and its activities. The CITU and other unions had conveyed to the Chairman that their refusal to cooperate was in protest against the Vajpayee Government not abiding by the consultation process.

The Report commented: “The Terms of Reference given to our Commission have attracted some adverse criticism. They have been described by some, as too narrow and too limited, inadequate to cover all the crucial inter-related issues that have to be considered together. Some have gone so far as to suggest that what they consider the inadequacies of the Terms of Reference reveal a tilt in favour of demands and interests of one section. Some of them have openly expressed their apprehension that the Commission might not be impartial and unprejudiced, but might act as an instrument of partisan interests. They have, therefore, advocated and adopted a policy of non-cooperation. The Commission deeply regrets this unwarranted and unmerited prejudice. …”

We wonder, whether such a derisive comment against the trade unions, which as a matter of principle chose not to cooperate, was warranted in the light of the anguish by the Commission chairman to the Prime Minister and particularly when the Commission while making specific recommendation on change of labour laws followed more or less the lines dotted by the Finance Minister’s announcement, thereby proving that such apprehensions by the trade unions were neither unwarranted nor prejudiced!

SUBJECTIVE BIAS

The first two chapters of the Commission Report are devoted to analyse the terms of reference and trace the historical background - from evolution of trade unions in India to the globalisation era. The subjective bias that pervades the historical dissertation of today - particularly the sangh parivar’s attempt to rewrite history in saffron colour - manifest here as well. To cite a few. There is a singular effort to present the BMS as the only trade union force from political control and to project its rise. Yet another piece dealing with the situation during the Second World War notes: “It is well known that during this period, the Communist movement worked against the policies and programmes of struggles of the Indian National Congress and the nationalist movement in the country.” This is nothing but echoing the decades-old canard against the Communists, as though they are outside the periphery of national movement. It is highly reprehensible that the pages of the Labour Commission Report have come to be used for recording partisan prejudices.

STUDY GROUPS

The Commission had appointed six study groups to make in-depth studies on the following subjects:

1. Review of Laws

2. Umbrella Legislation for the workers in the Unorganised Sector.

3. Social security

4. Globalisation and its impact

5. Women and Child Labour

6. Social Development, Training and Workers’ Federation.

The Commission Secretariat, before it was wound up, had sent copies of these study Group Reports to all the Central trade unions. The Report claimed that the Commission addressed the task outlined to it on the basis of these reports and had made copious use of them. May be, the volume of the Report testifies to the copious use made of these study reports. But, the contents of the recommendations do not lend credence to the claim that they are based on the finding s of these study groups.

The Commission Report had dwelt on the impact of Globalisation at considerable length, spanning over a hundred pages. This chapter incorporates the Commission observations and findings on the situation in China when the Commission visited China for the specific purpose. (See a detailed report on pages…) One significant feature of this part of the Report is that it has drawn up a full-blown picture of the negative impacts of the world Bank-IMF driven globalisation. This chapter is almost an endorsement of the trade union critique of the policies of globalisation. But, the other two chapters on the Commission’s Approach to Review of Laws” and the “Review of Laws” are totally on anti-thesis of the ground realities vividly captured in the preceding chapter.

In these two chapters as well as the succeeding chapters on unorganised sector, social sector, women and child labour, etc, the Commission has spelt out a lot of pious declarations of intent. But, when it comes to prescribing precise action-plans, the Commission Report is just a non-starter.

ANTI LABOUR THRUST

But, the Commission was keen on delivering what it was mandated to, in the arena of labour law changes, to gladden the hearts of the employer class and also to match the Finance Minister’s arrogant announcement on labour law reform in his budget speech. The anti-labour thrust of the Commission Recommendations are revealing from the following:

· Freedom to hire and fire to all establishments employing up to 300 workers.

· Varying rates of compensation to workers, rewarding the employers who manage to have their units declared sick

· Provisions of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to change in conditions of service diluted and rendered practically ineffective in favour of employers.

· Green signal for unfettered freedom to contract out non-core jobs completely and core jobs also subject to some spurious limitations.

· No to industry level wage boards

· No secret ballot for selection of bargaining agent

· Secret Ballot MUST for strikes. Open ended right to Government for politicising strikes.

· Punitive prescriptions for illegal strike

· ‘Go Slow’, ‘Work to Rule’ termed misconduct

· A façade of equating lock out to strike

· Curtailment of holidays

· ‘8 hour work day’ concept tampered with

· Separate law for small industries

· Supervisors irrespective of salary and employees in higher bracket of salaries to be outside the purview of labour laws. Allow wide spread registration of Membership Based Organisations' of women workers under the TU Act, which in effect will divide the trade union movement on gender lines.

The sub-text of the Commission Recommendations on Social Security is pre-set in the opening remarks of the Report, which reads: “We are aware that the degree of protection that a society or State is able to assure to the worker; or those who are preparing to enter the workforce, or who have been incapacitated, will depend on the resources available to the State society and the contributions that citizens/beneficiaries themselves can make” (Para 1.13) (emphasis added).

This makes it clear that the Commission has meekly submitted to the lack of political will on the part of those in the governance to mobilise/allocate adequate resources to provide even the basic components of social security to the needy and disadvantaged.

The Commission has attempted to present an indicative draft of a comprehensive law on Labour Management Relations, which it has proposed in replacement of all the existing laws. Such sterile exercises have been repeated in respect of unorganised sector, child labour, etc, as well. But, these are more of an archival value. It is futile to hope for even a cosmetic relief for the concerned workers.

The Ravindra Varma Commission Report is yet another challenge before the working people of our country. The BJP led Government at the Centre, will pick up for immediate action only those parts of the Report, which serve the interests of the employer class. The other parts, which are only meant to hide the ugly face of the ‘labour reforms prescriptions’, will remain mere decorations. The working class has to unitedly rally to address itself to the impending task of decisively defeating the attack.


Home \| Voice of Electricity workers \| Press Release \| Resolutions \| Feedback \| About Us