People's Democracy

Oppose Surreptitious Moves To Change Labour Laws

Hemalata

EVER since the so-called reforms process was initiated, the employers have intensified their pressure on the government to ‘liberalise’ the labour laws and give them a free hand to ‘hire and fire’. Willing though the government was to oblige them, it could not fulfil all their wish lists because of the stiff resistance from the working class of India. Opposition to the anti-worker amendments to the labour laws was demonstrated by the unprecedented success of the May 21 all India general strike in which all sections of the working class, organised and unorganised participated. But the present BJP-led NDA government is determined to find out some back door methods, in its zeal to satisfy their capitalist masters. One such manifestation of their over enthusiasm came to light recently in the ‘options’ expressed by the senior officials of the government of India to the proposals sent to them by the ‘reform savvy’ Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandra Babu Naidu’s government.

In a letter to the central government, the Andhra Pradesh government had made some proposals relating to the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Trade Unions Act. In respect of the Industrial Disputes Act, the AP government informed that it has ‘decided’ to omit the proviso of item (vi) clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act so as ‘to empower the appropriate government to declare any industry in the first schedule as a public utility service, for such period as may be specified in the notification, without imposing any restriction of six months from time to time’. The senior officials of the central government were so considerate to express an option that ‘provision of 3 years period may be specified for review on public utility services’.

The state government has also proposed that ‘It has also decided to omit Chapter V dealing with special provisions to lay off, retrenchment and closure in certain establishments in which not less than one hundred workmen were employed so as to remove restrictions imposed on such employees under that chapter’. In this matter, the government of India did not even bother to pay heed to the recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour (SNCL), which has suggested raising the provision to 300 workmen, leave aside to the demands of the Trade Unions. Before the matter is even discussed in any tripartite forum like the Standing Labour Committee of the Indian Labour Conference, the Senior Officials went ahead and suggested ‘to raise the provision to 1000 workmen as against the existing provision of one hundred workmen’.

In respect of the Trade Union Act, the AP government has proposed ‘under Sub Section (i) of Section 4, this government suggested that in the case of Trade Union formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers, not less than 30 per cent of workmen connected to the employer may, …apply for registration of the trade union under this Act.’  Here too, while the SNCL has recommended that 10 per cent employees or a minimum of 100 would be necessary to register a trade union, the government of India, suggested ’20 per cent (instead of 30 per cent as requested by the AP government) of workmen connected to the employer may be considered to form the Trade Union.’

Chandra Babu Naidu has become notorious for his outbursts against ‘outside leadership’ of trade unions. He feels that it is difficult and sometimes impossible to subdue outside leadership with threats of job loss. So it is no wonder that the AP government has suggested ‘to substitute the Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act as follows – the total number of the office bearers of every registered Trade Union shall be persons actually engaged and employed in an industry with which the Trade Union is concerned.’  The government of India was not averse to accept the proposal. It was only of the view that ‘outside leadership should be considered in the unorganised sector’ only.

It may be recalled that except the INTUC, all the Trade Unions in the country opposed the anti working class recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour. Even the representative of the BMS in the SNCL had submitted a note of dissent to some of its recommendations. That the BMS leadership only confined itself to issuing high sounding statements and wriggled out of action when it really mattered is another matter. But because of this opposition from the working class the government of India had to agree to go through the motions of consultations with the social partners on the recommendations of the SNCL.

But, these options of the government of India as expressed by the Senior Officials is nothing but clear evidence of its intention to push ahead with the labour law changes to usher in a ‘hire and fire’ regime at the State level, even while the dialogue process is professedly on. The Maharashtra state government has already passed a similar retrograde legislation attacking the rights of the workers.

The working class of not only Andhra Pradesh, but the entire country should be vigilant against such moves and intensify united struggles to defeat such back door measures to bring in the labour law changes, in the light of the ‘options’ expressed by the government of India. The unity and determination of the working class demonstrated in the May 21 strike should be carried further forwards to protect the rights of the workers and the toiling masses.