People's Democracy

(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Vol. XXVI

No. 34

September 01,2002

SECOND NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR

On Labour Or Against Labour?

W R Varada Rajan

THE NDA Government constituted the Second National Commission on Labour (SNCL) without proper consultations with the central trade unions and without considering their views. The commission’s composition as well as terms of reference mainly aimed to kick-start the labour law reforms, which the employers had been clamouring for since long. Former finance minister Yashwant Sinha --- a ‘reformer’ in a hurry --- would not wait for the commission to complete its job. In his budget speech 2001-2002, he announced major amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Contract Labour Act. During the Indian Labour Conference on May 18 this year, 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 commission’s report. Yet, things did not exactly go the way Vajpayee government wanted, as other matters dominated parliamentary business. At last, the SNCL completed its job and presented its report to the prime minister on June 29.

The report, which runs into 1470 pages as one pink daily noted --- has not been made public, nor copies of it furnished to the central trade unions even by August end. Reason? The labour minister, Sahib Singh Verma, assured Rajya Sabha member, B S Ramoowalia on the floor of the House 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 report was not tabled. The labour ministry is knocking on 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 wrote 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 could also 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 this report, we are trying to present here, 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 March 7, 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’s refusal to abide 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 expressed by the chairman of the commission 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 report of the commission 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 - that they were 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:

in the Unorganised Sector.

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 report of the commission had dwelt on the impact of globalisation at considerable length, spanning over a hundred pages. This chapter incorporates the commission's observations and findings on the situation in China when the commission visited China for the specific purpose. 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 an 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 report of the commission 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:

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.