|
| M J Antony: Laboured delusions | | Funds for the welfare of unorganised labour are either not collected or the meagre sums not distributed |
| M J Antony / New Delhi Aug 18, 2010, 00:35 IST |
|
Lawmakers appear to be busy these days passing legislation to iron out the problems of corporate bodies, but they have not seriously looked into labour laws for years. The definition of the term “industry” in the main statute, the Industrial Disputes Act, is a case in point. It has been creating problems of interpretation for three decades. In view of the government’s lethargy, the Supreme Court had decided to clarify the situation five years ago, but it has not done so. The Act was meant to provide “speedy, inexpensive and effective forums of dispute resolution” but it has proved to be no better than the civil courts in terms of delays and expenses.
One of the serious problems in the new industrial climate is the engagement of temporary and daily wage workers for decades together without giving them the benefits due to regular employees. Government authorities and public sector undertakings, which were told to be “model employers” by the Supreme Court, are no less guilty than the private sector. In a case decided last week by the court (State of Karnataka vs M L Kesari), typists and assistants were kept on daily wages for 25 years without protection of the labour laws. After 15 years they began to assert their right in the courts. After an eight-year Odyssey through various courts, the Supreme Court has given them half a victory and they are back in the hands of the employers.
Another case that came up before the court last week (Health for Millions vs Union of India) showed how labour welfare laws are forgotten almost as soon as they are passed. This referred to the Buildings and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 under which a fund had to be set up for the benefit of the workers. But few states have done that and fewer still appeared in the court, prompting the judges to issue a warning that the chief secretaries would be summoned.
The performance of the few states that did respond to the court was dismal. The Delhi government, which is on a construction spree to host the Commonwealth Games, had collected Rs 350 crore in the past five years and spent only Rs 15 lakh for labour welfare. In January this year, the court had directed the state government to disburse 2 per cent of building costs collected as cess from builders for welfare of construction workers, according to the 1996 Act. The Delhi counsel could only make a bald statement that the amount is being given out for construction workers of the Games.
On the eve of Asiad 1982, the court had passed a series of orders to implement the minimum wages rules and provide workers a modicum of basic amenities, which were reluctantly implemented (Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India). Now it is the Commonwealth Games, and there are similar allegations. But the court has not intervened this time.
Then there is the Child Labour Rehabilitation and Welfare Fund. It was established by a judgment of the Supreme Court ten years ago in the case M C Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu. The petition highlighted mainly the exploitation of children in the fireworks industry in Tamil Nadu, but since the problem is nationwide, the court almost “legislated” the setting up of the fund. The labour inspectors were asked to identify child workers and their employers were asked to pay Rs 20,000 per child to the fund. The government was supposed to contribute Rs 5,000 per child liberated. Thus, the fund would have Rs 25,000 per child. The fund was meant to be used for the education and rehabilitation of the salvaged children. But there has been hardly any follow-up and few would have heard of this fund.
The contract labour system has spread with more severity despite an old law to regulate it. Employers pass on the economic burden of the welfare laws to the middlemen, and they use muscle and legal conundrums to avoid responsibility. In a 2003 judgment involving Bhel, the Supreme Court remarked: “Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal forms depending upon the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation cast welfare obligations on the real employer.”
Early this year, the Supreme Court made a mea culpa statement that there has been a “visible shift” in the judiciary’s approach to labour welfare legislation. It quoted Tagore who said that “we have for over a century been dragged by the prosperous West behind its chariot, choked by the dust, deafened by the noise, humbled by our own helplessness and overwhelmed by the speed”. It added that we should not be misled by the “glitz and glare of globalisation”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
