Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Written information provided by the Government

At the outset, we would like to mention that India is committed to promote and achieve sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment opportunities, equity and decent working conditions for all. Fair, randomized, effective, unbiased inspection systems coupled with tripartite consultation with our social partners are important tools for achieving our specific objective of labour welfare. Specific reply to the points raised in the report is as follows.

I. Violation of Articles 2, 4, and 23 of the Convention: Labour inspection in SEZs

The special economic zones (SEZ) in India is a geographical region which aims at export promotion and has a broad range of more specific zones like export processing zones, free trade zones, free ports etc. The SEZs have economic laws that are more liberal than a country’s domestic economic laws. However, as per SEZ Act and Rules, framed thereunder, the central Government shall have no authority to relax any law relating to the welfare of the labour in the SEZs. As all labour laws are applicable in SEZs, the provisions of inspection system as provided in 20 central labour acts is applicable in letter and spirit on SEZs.

Article 2 of Convention No. 81 stresses on presence of labour inspection system in all industrial workplaces which aims at enforcing the legal provisions provided under various labour acts through labour inspectors. In India, there are seven SEZs, the details of each SEZ in terms of number of workers and enterprise is provided in Annexure I. Out of the seven SEZs, the power of labour inspection has been delegated in Noida SEZ, which covers ten states. In Mumbai SEZ, state government has not delegated powers under the Factories Act (which governs OSH regulations). In addition, no such powers are delegated (in any SEZ) in respect of laws that are administered centrally i.e. in social security legislations such as the EPF Act and the ESI Act. It is also informed that the powers have been delegated due to administrative difficulty as some SEZs have jurisdiction of more than one state, for example, the SEZ at Noida.

With respect to implementation of safety provisions related to Factory, the powers are still with the specialized labour inspectors. Further, even in the SEZs, where the power has been delegated to development commissioners, the labour inspectors from state government have been deputed under him to carry out the functions of labour inspections. These inspectors are still drawing the salary from their respective state governments and function independently to effectively enforce the labour laws.

This indicates that SEZs have a fully operational inspection system in place, which aims at enforcement of various labour laws. For effective implementation, legally, the powers of carrying out an inspection could be delegated to any government official for any particular jurisdiction and for that jurisdiction; such government officials would be “the labour inspectors”. Appropriate government delegates the power of inspection to the government official as per legal provisions provided in the statutes. It is the sovereign right of the appropriate government to decide who would be given the powers of labour inspection in a particular geographical region.

It is clear that the system of labour inspection is present in SEZs and is enforced by the “labour inspectors” as notified by the appropriate government in that region keeping in view all the factors and the officer designated for inspection acts in an independent manner. Therefore the inspection system in SEZs is not in contradiction to Article 2 of the Convention No. 81.

The details on the number of labour inspections conducted in seven SEZs in India during the last three years is provided in Annexure II. It may be seen that the number of inspections conducted have increased in 2018–19 as compared to 2017–18 in all SEZs. In this regard, an Advisory dated 20 May 2019 has also been issued by the central Government to SEZs and state governments to carry out unannounced inspections. It may be emphasized that in Falta and Mumbai SEZs, only unannounced inspections are being carried out, and in other SEZs both unannounced and announced inspections are being carried out. The latest data on inspection also indicates that the number of unannounced inspection has increased in Falta SEZ, Kolkata, Vishakapatnam SEZ, Mumbai SEZ, Cochin SEZ, Noida SEZ and Kandla SEZ, in last two years.

The statistics indicating status of implementation of labour laws in seven SEZs in India is in Annexure III. It is seen that though inspections are being carried out in reasonable numbers, however, the violations detected and prosecutions launched are very few in SEZs. A detailed report in this regard was sought from SEZ and after examination it was ascertained that the labour laws relating to minimum wages, payment of bonus, timely payment of wages, equal remuneration, child labour, working hours and social security are being implemented effectively and even more stringently as compared to non-SEZ areas. There is a special grievance redressal mechanism in these SEZs which try to sort out any complaint received from workers in order to maintain harmonious relationship in the SEZ. In fact, being an export promotion zone which houses prominent and big units, SEZs ensure better and safe working conditions for the workers by use of latest technology.

II. Violation of Articles 10 and 11 – Material means and human resources at the central and state level

The appropriate government takes necessary measures from time to time to ensure that sufficient numbers of officials are available for undertaking labour inspection and they are facilitated by the government machinery to fulfil their duties and responsibilities. The details of human resources available for enforcement of labour laws and various facilities provided to them by state and central Government may be perused at Annexure IV and V. It may be observed that new recruitment of about 560 inspectors have been done in 2018 and 2019. It may be seen that vehicles for inspection are provided by ten states and in central sphere. Further, states that do not provide vehicles for inspection have provision of reimbursement of travelling allowance for the inspectors. It may also be seen from the data received from various state government that facilities like mobiles, laptops, etc. are also being provided by the respective governments to facilitate inspection process.

III. Violation of Articles 12 and 17 – Free initiative of labour inspectors to enter workplaces without prior notice and discretion to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning

The process of codification of all central labour acts into four Labour Codes in India has been initiated with the intent of simplifying, rationalizing, and amalgamating various provisions to enhance the compliance of the legislation. This would lead to universalization of minimum wages, social security, decent working conditions, etc. to all labour workforce in India. With these objectives, the four Labour Codes have been drafted after exhaustive consultative process involving state government, social partners, experts and the general public. A series of tripartite meetings were held at the time of drafting the Labour Codes. It is emphasized here that the Labour Codes have not yet been finalized and are being modified on the basis of inputs of various forums including Honourable Members of Parliament though Parliamentary Standing Committee. The Wage Code which was introduced in the Parliament has also lapsed and is being modified on the basis of comments received from various stakeholders. It is clear that the Labour Codes have not yet been enacted and are in dynamic state; hence, quoting any provision from such draft documents and inferring it to be violation of Convention No. 81 would not be very appropriate.

The draft provisions relating to inspections in the Codes have been drafted with the objective of providing such mechanism, which ultimately reduces arbitrariness, corruption, vested interests and promotes a transparent mechanism which leads to effective enforcement and compliance of labour laws. No provision of previous information before inspection has been made in the Labour Codes. The inspector is permitted to enter any place as per section 35(i) of the modified OSH Code. Further, the name of the inspector in Labour Codes has been modified from “facilitator” to “inspector cum facilitator” on the basis of input from the social partners. The term is further subject to modification on the basis of further deliberations. It is reiterated that the provisions of the Wage Code and the OSH Code are being modified from time to time on the basis of inputs received at various levels. Therefore, any conclusion derived on the basis of draft provisions would be premature. It is assured that the provisions of the Labour Codes would be in sync with the Convention No. 81 or any other ILO Convention ratified by India.

The inspections in the central sphere are also being assigned on a random basis through ShramSuvidha Portal and the inspector does not inform prior to the inspection. To promote transparency the inspection reports have to be uploaded on the websites within 48 hours of conducting inspections. The details of the inspections conducted in central sphere and state governments for the last three years are in Annexure VI and Annexure VIIa, VIIb and VIIc. The details regarding violations detected, prosecutions launched and penalties imposed at state and central sphere is in Annexure VIII and Annexure IX.

IV. Violation against Articles 4, 20 and 21: Availability of statistical information on the activities of the labour inspection services at central and state level

Labour is in the concurrent list and the enforcement of labour laws in the central sphere is with the central Government and in the state sphere is with respective state governments. The inspections conducted in the central sphere by various central government agencies like Central Labour Commissioner (for most of the labour legislation in central sphere), Director-General, Mines Safety (for inspection in mines), Director-General of Factory Advice Service and Labour Institute (for inspection at ports) is consolidated and published in the general annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The last annual report was published in 2017–18. The annual report of the Ministry is available online on the website of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. Besides, the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) also maintains labour statistics relating to inspections conducted. The inspection data is incorporated in the annual reports of the two organizations and the annual report is available on the website of the EPFO and ESIC. With respect to state governments, it is informed that the data regarding inspections conducted under various labour legislations is sent by state government to the Labour Bureau and the same is compiled and published in the Indian Labour Journal.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to present the Indian Government’s response regarding observations of the Committee of Experts on the implementation of the Convention in India.

At the outset, I would like to assure the Committee of India’s commitment to fulfil all the obligations it has undertaken under the various Conventions of the ILO, to which India is a party. Being a founding member of the ILO, even before we became independent, India has a deep respect for international labour standards by the ILO, and is guided by the principles of decent work, social justice and labour welfare in all its endeavours.

The importance we attach to this issue can be gauged by the fact that the Government has directed me to be present here in person and brief this Committee on the various efforts being undertaken by the Government of India for the welfare of the workers. As the Committee may be aware, the general elections in India, which is the largest such exercise in the world, has just been concluded, and the Government, under Honourable Prime Minister Modi, has been re-elected with an overwhelming support from the people. Yesterday was the first day of the new Parliament, and labour welfare is one of the main issues which would be under its consideration. Before my delegation responds to the specific observations of the Committee, I would like to briefly highlight the transformative initiatives taken by the Government of India over the last five years to further its goal of achieving an inclusive, just, equitable, fair and economically sustainable society in India.

The motto of our Government, under Honourable Prime Minister Modi, has been “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” that is “inclusive growth through collective efforts”. Under his guidance, the Government has undertaken a path-breaking initiative towards simplification, amalgamation and rationalization of the existing 45 central labour legislations, into four Labour Codes, which intends to provide wage security, social security and decent working conditions to our workers. We are in the process of providing every worker the right of sustenance, by universalization of the right to get wages not less than the minimum wages to our entire 500 million workforce. This would increase the coverage by 60 per cent and would benefit more than 300 million additional workers. I would like to highlight that this would amount to 100 per cent coverage of the workers for the minimum wages. This reform process also intends to provide a dynamic legislation in sync with the changing business structure, demographic change and technological advancement.

The Government of India is committed to provide a comprehensive social security cover to all its workers, particularly those in the informal sector. Social security coverage in the organized sector is being extended through an IT-enabled platform to have a portable mechanism, which supports the transfer of a provident fund on change of job. We have recently introduced the biggest pension scheme for unorganized workers to ensure old-age protection for about 400 million unorganized workers. It is a voluntary and contributory pension scheme with defined benefits, where the Government contributes the equal matching amount to the subscriber’s pension fund. Under this new scheme, the subscriber would receive an assured pension after attaining the age of 60 years. Further, a new scheme has been launched that offers pension coverage to the trading community. Under this new scheme, all shopkeepers, retail traders and self-employed persons are also assured a minimum monthly pension after attaining the age of 60 years. The scheme is likely to benefit more than 30 million small shopkeepers and traders. To facilitate work and family life balance, India is among the few countries that have increased the paid maternity benefit from 12 to 26 weeks. The other major policy decisions taken for the benefit of workers include enhancing the gratuity amount from 1 million Indian Rupees (INR) to INR2 million, increasing the minimum wages by 42 per cent in all sectors, and also changing the eligibility criteria for grant of bonus.

In order to promote the transition from the informal to the formal sector and also to generate new employment, the Government has launched a scheme where the Government of India pays the full employer’s contribution towards the Employees’ Provident Fund and Employees’ Pension Scheme. We are also implementing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which provides at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

As the Committee may be aware, India has a federal polity, where the central Government and the state governments have been conferred power under the Constitution, to enact the laws and to enforce them in their respective spheres. India has an elaborate system of labour legislations with 45 central labour acts and the various state labour laws. These labour legislations operate to safeguard the rights of workers, ensuring minimum wage, gratuity and social security. Further, specific central laws have been enacted aimed at securing the welfare of workers engaged in factories, mines, plantation, construction work and contractual employment. The enforcement of the relevant provisions of the various labour acts is secured through a system of labour inspectorates, both at the central and the state level. Further, the cases of labour law violations are taken to their logical conclusion by a system of penalties and criminal prosecutions in the court of law.

The case related to the violation of the Convention was also discussed in the Committee in 2017, and the Committee of Experts, in its 2019 report, had sought information about the inspection system in special economic zones and about the availability of human resources and other material means for conducting the inspections in the central and state spheres.

I would like to inform the Committee that more than 574 inspectors have been recruited by various state governments in the last two years, taking the total to 3,721. The total number of inspectors, as of date, has increased by 18.2 per cent when compared to the figures in 2017. In the central sphere, as on date, the number of inspectors are 4,702. I would also like to submit that in the central sphere, 100 per cent of inspections are unannounced. The inspections in the central sphere are being done by allotting the establishments on a random basis through the centralized computer system, for which we have an e-portal that is known by the name of “Shram Suvidha Portal”. Further, to promote transparency, the inspection reports have to be uploaded by the inspectors, on the websites, within 48 hours of conducting inspections.

Once again, it is reiterated that in the central sphere 100 per cent of inspections are unannounced. The number of unannounced inspections in the various states has been steadily increasing. During the year 2016–17, these unannounced inspections were over 189,000, and in the year 2017–18, these inspections grew to 203,000 and further to 239,000 in 2018–19. Year on year, the increase in the unannounced inspections is roughly about 18 per cent. It will not be out of place to mention that the proportion of unannounced to announced inspections has increased considerably over the year. Announced inspections constitute only about 8.3 per cent of the total inspections. The remaining 91.7 per cent are unannounced.

The Committee has specifically raised the issue of inspection in SEZs in India. I would like to inform that with a view to attracting larger foreign investments and boosting employment opportunities for the youth, SEZs have been set up across the country. Presently, there are seven SEZs operational in India. It is emphasized that all labour legislations are equally applicable to the SEZs as elsewhere in the country. There has been no dilution as far as the implementation of labour laws is concerned in the SEZs, in particular the system of labour inspections.

The statistical data on inspections in SEZs clearly indicate that the number of inspections conducted in SEZs have increased from 667 in 2016–17 to 1,648 in 2017–18, and further to 3,278 in 2018–19. The number of inspections conducted in SEZs in 2018–19 have increased five times since 2016–17. In this regard, a directive has also been issued by the union Government to the state governments and SEZs to carry out unannounced inspections only. During the last three years, prosecutions have been launched and penalties have been imposed in all seven SEZs, the details of which have already been shared with the Office.

I would like to inform the Committee that India is a very vast and diverse country with approximately a 500 million workforce, and the workers engaged in SEZs is merely 0.2 per cent of the total workforce. The inspection rate in SEZs amounts to 6 per cent of the total inspections conducted nationwide.

I would like to put on record that the establishments in SEZs follow state of the art technology and the employees are given the facilities of international standards and there is no compromise on the minimum wages, working conditions, health, safety, welfare and social security of the employees. Therefore, the possibility of violations of the various labour laws in the SEZs at the inception itself is negligible. Further, the workers are more informed about their rights in these establishments and these areas are also under continuous vigil of the appropriate authorities.

The SEZs also have a robust grievance redressal mechanism where the issues of workers are resolved. The systems are user-friendly and time-efficient. In addition, the mechanism of conciliation between employer and employee in case of a dispute in all the SEZs acts as a preventive mechanism or as an early warning system which responds in time. I am sure the Committee would agree that the best way of ensuring quick relief to the issues of workers would be when the worker himself or herself brings the problem to the attention of the inspection authority. These mechanisms ensure that all the labour laws are better enforced in SEZs, which simultaneously promotes export and overall growth besides the reasonable employment generation.

I would like to inform that the powers of inspectors have not been compromised in the proposed Labour Codes. On the contrary, it is proposed in the new legislations to introduce jurisdiction-free inspection which is a step in furtherance of unannounced inspections. At present, an inspector is assigned a territory or a jurisdiction which may lead to connivance between the inspector and the employer of the establishment under his jurisdiction. However, with the concept of jurisdiction-free inspection, the establishments will have no prior information either about the timing of the inspection or about the identity of the inspector.

With regards to the IT–ITES sector, we wish to inform that the working conditions in the IT and ITES sector are regulated by the provisions of the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act of state governments and the central labour acts like the Employees Provident Fund Act, Employees State Insurance Act, Industrial Dispute Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, Payment of Compensation Act are applicable to all the IT–ITES sector. These establishments are inspected by the regular state government labour enforcement machinery and central Government machinery like any other establishments. The overall inspection data provided to the Office includes the data of inspection in these establishments also.

I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the point that the present age is the age of technological revolution where technology can be harnessed to provide new job opportunities, enhance efficiency, save time and resources and also develop mechanisms which are transparent, time bound and unbiased. This technology can be used with changing times to make our inspection system more responsive, transparent and effective. With this intent, the Government is trying to evolve the existing inspection system in India without compromising on its strengths and restricting the probability of formation of any corrupt nexus between its constituents, ultimately leading to labour law compliance.

In India, the robust grievance redressal system for everyone, including workers, is in place. For example, if a worker is aggrieved by a non-enforcement of any of the provisions of any labour act, then he or she can take judicial recourse also. The independence of judiciary in India is a basic and foundational value of the Constitution. India is known for fiercely independent judiciary. Further, the administrative grievance redressal is in place where an individual in case of any grievance can approach the offices of the Honourable President, Honourable Prime Minister and Minister concerned besides the various other authorities. The central Government also has a centralized e-portal for lodging, tracking and resolving the grievance redressal. These grievances have to be disposed in a time-bound manner. Earlier the timeline to dispose of the grievance was 30 days; however on average, grievances are being disposed of within 13 days. I am personally monitoring the disposal of the grievances on the portal. In fact, at present, to resolve the grievances, feedback is also taken telephonically from the complainant as to how effectively his grievance has been addressed. A survey conducted has indicated that 70 per cent of the workers are satisfied with the quality of disposal of their grievances through the e-portal. Similar systems exist at the state level and the district level also. Such a time-bound responsive grievance mechanism pre-empts the violation or rising of dispute and promotes industrial harmony. All these systems are web-based, user-friendly and time-efficient. Further, the Minister of Labour and Employment also interacts with representatives of trade unions on a regular basis to understand the problems of workers. The Government of India is committed for the welfare of its workers and is complying with the provisions of the Convention through a more efficient, effective and transparent inspection system.

Employer members – We thank the Government for the rather full remarks that we have just received. Just by way of background, Convention No. 81 on labour inspection is a governance or a priority Convention ratified by India in 1949. This particular case has been discussed already twice in the Committee in 2015 and 2017 and has been the subject of 11 separate observations by the Committee of Experts since 2000, so it is not new.

Technically it is a case about the adequacy of labour inspection in SEZs rather than more generally. The main issues relate to things like:

- the adequacy of resources available to labour inspectors for SEZs inspections;

- the ability of labour inspectors to enter SEZ premises on their own initiative and freely; and also

- the numbers of inspections carried out particularly those without prior warning.

However, this could also be called a case of inadequate consideration of the facts. The complaint on which this case is based was not made by the peak union body of India or even the national employers; it was in fact made by a relatively minor union with, as I understand it, a very low presence in SEZs themselves. So having received the complaint it would be expected that the Committee of Experts would have conducted some sort of corroborative investigation to ascertain the status of the complainants and the extent of the issue, and to garner the views of the social partners before proceeding the case to this Committee but this did not happen. If it had, we might not have been considering this case, as the state of play in SEZs has undergone significant change since this matter was first raised in 2015. This seems to have escaped the attention of the union that brought the case and it certainly has escaped the net as it has got to here. However, it is a case, we have it here today so let us look at some of the facts.

By way of background, SEZs are geographical regions created to incentivize business investment, export promotion and the like. Within the generic description of SEZs is a broad range of more specific zones like export processing, free trade, free ports and so on. The SEZs have economic laws that are more liberal than the country’s domestic economic laws but vitally important. However, the labour laws are the same as those that apply to the rest of the country, and that is an important fact.

One of the concerns expressed by the minor union making the complaint related to the adequacy of resources available to labour inspectors. In its latest report, the Committee of Experts recalled the 2017 conclusions of the Committee concerning the need to increase the resources at the disposal of the central and state government inspectorates. Since then and as we have heard, over 570 more inspectors have been appointed across the various states. Inspectors are routinely provided with vehicles, phones, laptops and so on, although in some cases it is reported that, in lieu of a vehicle, inspectors are reimbursed for the costs of travel to and from inspection sites. In this last respect, the employers would note that this is not ideal, even if not widespread, as the requirement for an inspector to meet the immediate costs of travel may prove an inhibiting factor in enabling them to undertake inspections in a free and timely manner. So the employers would echo the call from the Committee of Experts that the Government ensure that the material resources at the disposal of the central and state government inspectorates are and remain adequate and do not inhibit the freedom and timeliness of their actions; and, that the Government continue to provide information on the number of labour inspectors at the central level and in all states

Another facet of this case is a claimed lack of ability of labour inspectors to undertake labour inspections freely and on their own initiative. As is apparent from the last two reports submitted to the Committee of Experts in 2015 and 2016 and the report submitted to this Committee by the Government, we have heard that there are no constraints placed on inspectors in relation to exercising their duties. They are free to enter any premises. They are empowered to examine any and all aspects of a business and its operations, as well as to seize any documents or other evidence they see fit.

Furthermore, technology-driven governance reforms have been introduced to strengthen the system, provide for transparency and accountability in the enforcement of labour laws and reduce the complexity of compliance. This web-enabled setup has improved the prioritization of inspections in workplaces based on risk assessments. This new setup has not curtailed the powers of labour inspectors to undertake workplace inspections; rather it has now a new and powerful tool to help them in managing their work.

Except for some routine inspections, and we have heard from the Government that this is less than 10 per cent, all inspections are unannounced. In the case of routine inspections, prior notice may be given at the discretion of the inspector to enable the employer to produce records for verification. Where there is a complaint or information with regard to any labour law violation, the system allows for an inspector’s full discretion to undertake an inspection at the time as well as to initiate any actions prescribed in the corresponding laws.

We heard in 2017 that, due to the federal structure of the country and the sovereignty of the states, there is no statutory mechanism for the states to furnish data to the central Government, and that relevant information is provided by the states on a mainly voluntary basis. This year the Government has provided a wide range of data covering inspections. This is a significant improvement over the lack of information on previous occasions. That said, we would observe that the voluntary nature of some of the data collection creates risks to the ultimate comprehensiveness and credibility of the collated data. This is an area that needs more work. However, the fact that this data is being provided does in fact challenge the union claim that no inspections have occurred because the data cannot have come from nowhere. It is clear that there are inspections occurring.

In its response to the Committee of Experts’ observations, the Government has taken a number of steps over time to improve data on enforcement of labour legislation and labour inspection services. The Government has also been obtaining technical assistance from the ILO to evaluate the data collection systems with a view to suggesting appropriate measures for improving their coverage and reliability. The Labour Bureau receives statutory statistics relating to the central and state levels in the form of annual returns under various labour acts. In addition to these annual returns, monthly returns are being received on a voluntary basis. The Labour Bureau has undertaken a project concerning the strengthening and modernization of the system for the collection of statistics from the states and establishments through the introduction of the technology I referred to before, which is in development but already in use. Upon implementation, the system for collection and compilation of statistics will be made available online to the extent feasible and this will further enable the Bureau to collect and compile timely statistics at all levels of government.

With these points in mind, and I have to say, as has been requested before, we urge the Government to:

- take national level measures to ensure that all levels of India’s labour jurisdiction publish and submit annual reports on labour inspection activities in full compliance with the information required by Article 21 of the Convention;

- pursue its efforts towards the establishment of registers of workplaces at the central and state levels and the computerization and modernization of the data collection system, and to provide detailed information on any progress made in this respect; and

- provide detailed information on the progress made with respect to measures taken to improve the data collection system enabling the registration of data in all sectors, all states and at the national level.

Concerns have also been expressed about self-certification and inspections undertaken by certified private agencies. The Government has provided assurances that the self-certification scheme has been launched only in some states, and that in no case does it substitute the labour inspection system, rather it is a scheme to encourage voluntary and simpler compliance, without compromising the rights of workers. It permits business to effectively monitor themselves on an ongoing basis to ensure they are compliant with all legal requirements. This protects them against adverse finding if and when an inspection does take place. In the Employers’ view this development is separate from and in addition to the role played by inspectors. Self-certification does not protect a business against inspection but it may assist a business in avoiding adverse consequences from an inspection. Thus, in the Employers’ view, it is to be encouraged.

In relation to delegation of powers to inspectors in SEZs and statistical information on labour inspections, as we have heard from the Government, there are seven SEZs zones in the country. In four, as I understand it, no powers have been delegated to the development commissioners who head up these SEZs, whereas in another case, which covers ten states, powers have been delegated by one of the states and that is an SEZ. So there is a very limited application or a very limited delegation of powers away from labour inspectors and only in the one small area of one SEZ.

The Government has provided detailed statistics to the last Committee and to the Committee of Experts in 2016 on inspections under various labour laws in individual states and SEZs, including on the number of inspectors, the number of units, the workers employed. This information remains valid today.

With respect to the number of inspections carried out there seems to be some confusion. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that very few inspections were carried out. The union that is the source of this case, in 2017 and again now, claimed that there is virtually no inspection system in SEZs. They claimed or added that, despite the absence of violations reported, there are violations, in fact, of all basic labour laws in SEZs and that there has been no improvement in the situation since the discussion of this case in June 2017. This is not the experience of the Employers and, as we have heard, not the experience of the Government. Rather than no inspections being carried out, the situations seems to be more that no violations or few violations have been reported as a result of inspections. This is a very different thing. No violations reported does not mean that no inspections were carried out. The claims therefore need to be examined critically as it appears the union making the claim does not have a major presence and therefore may not be in possession of all of the facts.

With respect to the delegation of powers to development commissioners, this is limited to situations where the footprint of the SEZ crosses the boundary of more than one state. The commissioner has the responsibility of ensuring that inspections are carried consistent across the full reach of the SEZ and this occurs, as we understand, it in two of the seven states.

The Committee previously noted that the Code on Wages, 2017 Bill, does not explicitly refer to the principles contained in Article 12(1)(a) and (b), but provides that the governments at the state level may lay down separate inspection schemes, including the generation of a website-based scheme as we now understand that this is occurring.

Since then, the Government has indicated that several tripartite meetings have been held in the drafting process of the Code. This work continues. The Government indicates that the Code on Wages Bill is currently before the Parliamentary Standing Committee. It is emphasized that the Code is yet to pass but it does not in any way inhibit inspectors in carrying out their duties, as their powers already exist and will not be extinguished in the future.

Finally, we note that facilitators have the power to prosecute, conduct or defend before a court, any complaint or other proceeding arising under the OSH and Working Conditions Rule, or the rules and regulations made thereunder, and to exercise such powers as may be prescribed. However, the Bill is silent as we understand it with regard to the powers of labour inspectors to initiate legal proceedings against persons who violate or neglect to observe the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors with respect to health and safety. This does need to be dealt with.

With all these points in mind, the Employers call upon the Government to take measures:

- to ensure that any legislation developed is in full conformity with the Convention;

- to ensure that the Code on Wages and the OSH and Working Conditions Act explicitly allow labour inspectors on their own initiative to enter workplaces without prior notice, not limited to situations where complaints have been made or indicators exist for labour law violations; and

- to ensure that the Code on Wages and the OSH and Working Conditions Act guarantees the discretion of labour inspectors to initiate prompt legal or administrative proceedings without previous warning, and to be able to order remedial measures and give warnings in line with the Convention.

Worker members – We have discussed the application of Convention No. 81 in India in the years 2015 and 2017 and on each occasion, we raised concern over the large-scale exclusion of workplaces and workers from the coverage of labour inspections, the needs for an effective functioning labour inspectorate and the absence of an adequately resourced, coherent and centralized labour inspection system. Regrettably, these concerns continue to remain valid today. We continue to be deeply concerned about the poor enforcement of labour laws in SEZs, due to the deficiency of inspections in such areas.

The Government seems to justify its off-handed approach by arguing that because the zones spread across several states, they should be governed by policies at the state level. However, this has resulted in the fact that, in some states, inspection powers are now in the hands of development commissioners. These commissioners also have the responsibility to promote investment. The problem with that is that the zones compete with each other for economic investment and the lax enforcement of labour laws through weak inspection is seen as a means to promote investment. This has led to a situation where inspections in these zones have been becoming completely inadequate. We note the Committee of Experts’ indication that while the Government has now provided some scanty statistics, it was still not possible to make an informed assessment of the protection of workers in these zones due to the absence of information.

The Government has also submitted statistical information to the Committee. However, the information submitted is unclear and incomplete and is therefore inadequate in demonstrating that the Government has, as it claims, put the necessary measures in place. It does not provide the minimum basic information required for an evaluation of the operation of the labour inspectorate and for an assessment at the international level by the ILO supervisory bodies. While the number of workplaces liable to inspection are indicated, the number of workers employed is missing. This is critical for the evaluation of the adequacy of the number of labour inspectors. The results of proceedings and penalties are also not indicated. It is unclear why the Government has pursued penalties in some instances of violations detected but not in others. It is also unclear what the penalties that have been imposed were constituted of.

In this regard, we also highlight our great concern about the Government’s continued failure to provide its annual report on the work of the labour inspection services to the ILO as required under Article 21 of the Convention. But let us look at the information that we do have. The Government indicates for example that in the Vishakapatnam SEZ, which includes 652 enterprises, only 74 inspections have been undertaken over the past three years with not a single offence recorded or pursued. According to the Government report, the same is true for Mumbai after 105 inspections. Our concerns about the absence of information submitted by the Government on labour inspections in SEZs and the quality and number of inspections remain.

In this regard, we also emphasize that Article 4 of the Convention affirms the principle of having a coherent and coordinated inspectorate system under a single central authority and this to facilitate policy coherence and eliminate duplication of effort. Decentralizing labour inspection into SEZs is not in line with the Convention.

Regrettably, the Government has failed to ensure that there are adequate resources, both material and human, for labour inspections as provided under Articles 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81. Instead of employing more staff relative to the scale of the challenge of labour inspections, some states use civil servants and government officials on a temporary basis while others use development commissioners as labour inspectors. This violates the letter and spirit of the Convention.

We note, in line with Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, that labour inspection depends on the attraction and retention of qualified and motivated staff collaborating with workers’ and employers’ organizations. Temporarily recruited officers or development commissioners are conflicted by the very nature of their functions and mode of employment. We stress that the Convention is concerned with measures that ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the functioning of inspectorates, taking into account a number of factors:

- workplaces liable to inspection;

- the number and the range of categories of workers employed in such workplaces; and also

- the number and nature of the conditions to be enforced.

We call on the Government to prioritize labour inspections, especially in the SEZs. The Government must increase the number of professional inspectors and the commensurate material resources to match the rate of inspections in compliance with the Convention. The Government must ensure that workers in the SEZs do not suffer less favourable treatment from that required under the labour inspection standards.

Another area that deserves the close attention of the Committee concerns the impact of legislative changes on labour inspection. Many of the proposed reforms have the effect of rolling back protections for workers, including scaling down the work of labour inspectors. The Committee of Experts highlights the Wages Bill and the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Bill. Tripartite consultations on the Bills have been inconsistent, with no genuine consultations. The Government argues that the rollback of regulations for labour inspection is to provide technology-driven reforms to reduce the complexity of compliance. A web-based self-inspectorate system for businesses has been introduced based on self-assessment and reporting.

This means that labour inspectors will only be invited to the enterprise where the self-assessment report of the company reveals a violation or where a complaint has arisen. We note that the Committee of Experts have previously inquired from the Government how it expects to verify the self-assessed reports from businesses without answer.

Moreover, after the self-assessment has been conducted by workplaces, it is proposed that a so-called necessity test is applied in order to trigger inspections. This would clearly further limit the powers and independence of inspectors, preventing them from initiating inspections without notice, among other challenges. These changes constitute a violation of the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, which requires that inspectors perform their duties with full independence.

Furthermore, section 32 of the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Bill empowers states to prescribe their own conditions for conducting inspections including web-based inspections. Section 34(1) renames inspectors as “inspectors-cum-facilitators”. This is raising doubts about the role of labour inspectors. This is a departure from the terms, function and powers as envisaged by Convention No. 81. Section 2G of the Code on OSH and Working Conditions excludes buildings, construction sites, mines and factories with less than nine workers of its scope.

Under section 44 of the special provisions for contract labour and inter-state migrant workers, establishments with 19 or less workers are excluded from the scope of the legislation. The Factories Bill also raises the threshold of coverage from ten workers to 20 workers for establishments where power is used, and for those not using power, the threshold was raised from 20 to 40 workers.

We are concerned that the workplaces not meeting the thresholds will no longer be liable to inspections. With an immense informal economy, in fact only 6.5 per cent of workers are formally employed and there are millions of microenterprises. These changes are bound to have a devastating impact on the enforcement of labour protection.

In this regard, we recall that the Committee of Experts have clearly indicated that the Government must ensure that all workers benefit from labour inspections in respect of all legally protected conditions of service. We therefore reiterate that the so-called reforms have serious negative consequences for the protection of workers under the Convention and will ultimately erode the labour inspection system.

The working people of India need a strong labour inspectorate. There is a growing threat to occupational health and safety in the country, especially in the vast informal economy. The strengthening of the labour inspectorate is critical for the effective enforcement of the labour laws and the protection of workers.

India has just undergone an election period and we regret that various election campaigns used the derogatory term “inspector rush”, in order to justify policy promises that will eventually undermine the labour inspection system regrettably. We call on the Government to refrain from stigmatizing its inspectors in the future. It is our hope the Government will in the future refrain from such language and work towards a strong labour inspection system that is badly needed.

Employer member, India – I am presenting the views of the Council of Indian Employers on the complaint filed against India for violation of the Convention. We have taken note of the intervention made by the Government of India to the observations by the Committee of Experts. We also recall the interventions made on the case in the 106th International Labour Conference.

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We are one of the youngest nations in the world as well. It is extremely important to create a conducive ecosystem which allows us to take advantage of this unique opportunity for creating a sustainably developed society. We Employers stand committed to the cause of fundamental principles and rights at work. A committed workforce is our asset and we recognize that the same is possible only when the interests of the workers are appropriately taken care of.

India is a country with a plethora of labour legislations protecting every worker’s right and each legislation has a very stringent inspection system to carry out the mandate of the legislation. The punishment provided is very severe, even imprisonment for some violations.

SEZs are set up to promote exports but without diluting any labour rights. The development commissioner has been given the authority and responsibility of labour inspectors to enforce due compliance of labour laws. They have power to visit industrial units, inspect all the relevant records and take all necessary actions in case of violation. It is also seen that under development commissioner, inspectors from state labour departments inspect the units in the SEZ. It is incorrect to presume that SEZs are exempted from inspection and there is violation of the Convention.

I appreciate the efforts of the Government of India for providing such wide range of statistics indicating the presence of effective inspection system in India. I accept the fact that a biased and corrupt inspection system does more harm to the welfare of workers than the employers. SEZs are important export-oriented zones which promote employment and provide impetus to the growth of the country. They are usually comprised of big and reputed export units of national and even international origin which follow advanced technology and provide decent working conditions to the workers. It is sometimes also observed that the working conditions and facilities provided in the establishment of SEZs are far better than other enterprises. I also appreciate the use of ICT in inspection which will ensure transparency and reduce biases and vested interest. Exhaustive information has already been provided by the Government of India on the inspection system in the SEZ and in the other parts of the country. We submit that the Committee may like to consider favourably and there may not be any further reporting to the Committee of Experts.

Another Employer member, India – Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of Laghu Udyog Bharati, India, which is the largest Pan India Organization of Employers exclusively serving micro and medium enterprises in India, constituting more than 98 per cent of total enterprises and employing more than 40 per cent of the total workforce, next only to agriculture.

Laghu Udyog Bharati would like to submit that inclusion of India in the final list of countries for violation of the Convention is not fair and has been done in a non-transparent manner. As the Committee is aware, tripartite consultations with all stakeholders is the norm before any decision is taken. However, in this case I would like to inform the Committee that the Employer representatives from India were not consulted before placing the case against India in the final list. While detailed information on the specific points has been provided by the delegation of the Government of India, I would like to cover in brief some of the issues raised by the Committee from the Employers’ perspective.

As has been mentioned earlier, there are seven SEZs out of which in six the power of inspection is with the concerned state government labour inspectors as per the law and practice prevalent earlier. Only in one SEZ, due to its peculiar geographical situation of being surrounded by multiple states, the powers have been delegated to development commissioners. However, in this case also the actual inspection is done by the inspectors of the Labour Department and they draw their salary independent of development commissioners. The development commissioners are highly trained and professional persons. Therefore, the apprehension of development commissioners being biased as they are responsible for attracting foreign investment is not well founded. The development commissioners take action as per the law. Therefore, the points raised in the complaint are misleading and do not reflect the understanding as per law.

As far as delegation of powers to development commissioners in SEZ is concerned, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Convention calls for periodic inspections by the inspectors. However, the sovereign Government should have the right to give any officer the duty and powers of inspectors to such designated and trained authority which would be the inspectors for that particular region.

The fact that the total inspections carried out in such SEZs and the penalties imposed are higher than what they were during previous years proves that there is no deficiency anywhere.

India has a daunting task to provide employment opportunities to the burgeoning youth population so that it could benefit from the demographic dividend. Therefore, it is imperative that we take steps to promote growth, economic development and promote setting up of new enterprises. However, a comprehensive legislative framework supplemented by an equally active enforcement mechanism and ensuring the interest of the workers is not compromised is very important to achieve this. The SEZs must necessarily comply with all labour laws, including providing social security. It is pertinent to mention here that that the Committee of Experts has not tried to verify the allegations made in the complaint by having dialogue with either the largest trade union of India in that area or with the largest association of employers.

I would like to point out three things which the Government of India has done to enhance the benefits of workers:

(i) paid maternity leave has been increased from 12 to 26 weeks;

(ii) it has been planned to provide health insurance under Ayushman Bharat health scheme to 100 million families;

(iii) it has started Shram Suvidha Portal on which names of units to be inspected will be generated by a computer in total transparent manner. This is to reduce corruption without affecting any rights of workers.

For this, the Government of India should have been complimented but it is ironic that its name has been included in the final list of countries whose cases are to be debated for violations. In this particular matter, there is no fresh set of queries and the present is only a repetition of request to further provide the data. We submit that the Committee may like to consider favourably and hence may not be any further reporting to the Committee of Experts.

Worker member, India – I stand here for the protection of rights of the workers, which depends not only on a strong legislative structure, but also on its effective enforcement mechanism. The Indian Parliament has long back ratified Convention No. 81. Hence, any government in power has the bounden duty to follow the Convention in letter and in spirit, giving it the status of the law of the land. India had been facing tough times in the labour sector since the liberalization, privatization and globalization reforms were implemented from 1991.

Already the inspection system, which is functioning for long, is inefficient in implementation. We also concur with the view that corrupt and ineffective inspection system is not in the benefit of anyone, and, in fact, it hurts the welfare of the workers the most.

Multiplicity and a plethora of labour laws, both at the central and state level, many of which are more than half a century old, had been a headache for the workers as well as the trade unions. So, change of law according to passage of time is a national necessity. We have welcomed the amalgamation of existing central labour laws into four Codes, since the codification and simplification of labour laws had been a long pending demand raised by the trade unions. A series of tripartite meetings have been held where we have raised our concerns and priorities. Subsequently, many modifications have been done by the Government, and the process is still continuing.

Any labour law will achieve its objectives only when its enforcement is assured, and an effective inspection system is the tool which ensures the implementation of the legislation. In view of this, we in India have been advocating for a strong, transparent, and effective inspection system, and therefore, during the consultation process of the Labour Codes, we insisted that the term “facilitator” used in the Labour Codes in place of “inspector”, should be reversed. We are not against the use of technology in the inspection system in order to bring transparency and break the corrupt nexus between employer and inspector, but that should be well in tune with the spirit of the Convention. We add that the technology should be used for “ease of living” and for an effective administrative mechanism.

The Government has come forward to change the term to “inspector-cum-facilitator” and is now being assigned added responsibility of prevention of violations. The Government has assured that all the changes, whether governance or legislative, would not in any way dilute labour rights. During consultation with the Government, we stressed the importance of the surprise element of inspection. Now, as informed by the Government, all inspections conducted in the central sphere are unannounced and surprise inspections. Specialized inspections are being done by expert inspectors in the SEZs. The data submitted by the Government is indicative of the fact that labour inspection in India is becoming more transparent, effective and focused. We have deliberated at length with Government and have asked them that the inspection system be strengthened further. We have been getting assurance from the side of the Government regarding its effective implementation and continuation. We appreciate the constructive approach of the Government of India to correct the deviations made in the inspection systems. Here also, we hope the Government will take a positive approach considering the peculiar situation in the country.

It is true that, at the national Government’s sphere, the inspection system is working somewhat well, but, it is tragic to note that at the state government level, the system is functioning poorly for a long period. Being a federal structure in implementation, state governments should also be directed to hold unannounced inspections only. Hence, we have both the problem of continuation of the system, as well as effective implementation of inspection throughout the country.

Hence, we would demand the Government to stop any attempt at diluting the inspection systems, to increase the effectiveness of inspection systems, and to call tripartite meeting on how inspection system can be effectively carried forward, reflecting the true spirit of the Convention. We strongly urge the Government that all regular inspections should not be conducted by the development commissioners in SEZs and should instead be done by a separate labour department itself.

Another Worker member, India – Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to speak on behalf of my union Hind Mazdoor Sabha, as well as on behalf of many other central trade unions in India grouped under the Joint Trade Union Platform. Let me reiterate; we met and discussed these matters in 2015 and then in 2017, and once again, we are discussing the same measures. Labour inspection systems remain weakened and inspectors are not empowered to perform their functions in India.

The changes to the law that relate to labour inspection are part of the overall law reform that the Government has embarked on since 2014. This has included the consolidation of 44 central employment laws into four Codes: the Code on Wages; Code on Industrial Relations; Code on Social Security and Welfare; and the Code on Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions. The union movement has grave concerns in this regard because the law reform is aimed at weakening the rights of workers and unions in order to boost investments and economic growth.

For example, the Factories Act will be applicable to factories employing up to 40 and more workers. This will allow such factories to be exempted from 14 major labour laws. Previously the limit was ten; that was increased to 20 where power is used and from 20 to 40 where power is not used. As India is a country made up of many small enterprises, this will include over 70 per cent of the workers. The law reforms also include allowing employers to have a fixed-term contract for workers. This will destroy permanent employment and encourage casualization and insecurity of jobs. There will be no labour inspection in these areas.

Also in this regard, we have serious concerns that, as unions, we have not been involved in any way in the reform process. The central Government and a number of state governments are going ahead with the reforms despite our opposition to various aspects of the proposed amendments. A number of state governments including Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujrat and others have gone ahead with this amendment.

Through the labour law changes, the Government has introduced many changes that directly affect labour inspection:

- it has allowed the self-inspection of the employer;

- a web-based inspections system with no power of inspectors to undertake inspections without notice;

- the labour inspectors will no longer be called inspectors but will be called facilitators, and this has obviously a different meaning from inspection.

In the meantime, we have records showing that approximately 48,000 accidents occur annually; mostly in the agriculture, construction and manufacturing sectors. These are only recorded accidents and does not include those that were not recorded.

Since 2014, we have opposed the labour law amendments. The joint trade union platform have organized many national successful strikes in order to bring the attention of the Government to our opposition to the law reforms. We have registered our displeasure with the fact that they have not engaged us in meaningful consultations and have ignored the joint proposals given by the central trade union platform. In our latest action on this matter, over 200 million workers went on national strike in this regard on 8–9 January 2019.

In 2015, the ILO Country Office in India organized three national conferences involving all stakeholders on the law reforms and produced a technical report to advise the Government on the way forward. The Government ignored the report of the ILO. The Government of India must engage in meaningful consultations with the social partners on measures to comply with the obligations under the Convention, instead of engaging in formalities.

Government member, Sri Lanka – As per the information provided, India has taken several methods to strengthen its labour inspectorate system. Among them, new recruitment of labour inspectors, use of ICT and providing infrastructure facilities are commendable.

The delegation of inspection has been made for carrying out effective labour inspection. India is a very large country hence implementing labour laws across states need some type of special entity to maintain uniformity. We are of the opinion that the power of labour inspection has been delegated to development commissioners in SEZs to strengthen labour inspection system. The increased number of inspections in the recent past has proved this. Moreover, development commissioners are required to report to the central authority on labour inspections carried out in SEZs.

Further, the Government of India ensures that the labour laws are implemented uniformly around the country. So that there is no exception in SEZs. The process of codification of all central labour acts in to four Labour Codes in India has been initiated with the objectives of simplifying and rationalizing complexity. A consultative process has been followed in this regard. Relevant provisions would be included in the new legislations to implement the provisions of the Convention in law and in practice. Therefore, any conclusion derived based on draft provisions would be premature. As the Government of India has taken several initiatives in order to carry out effective labour inspection, including in SEZs, we think it does not amount to the serious violation of the Convention in law and in practice.

Employer member, Sri Lanka – The Employers from Sri Lanka speak as part of the Employers’ group and in solidarity with the representations made by the Employers’ spokesperson as well as our colleagues from India. India’s commitment to protect labour rights over the years is commendable. We are mindful that India has an extensive framework of labour laws at the federal level, as well as at the level of states, respectively. In addition, a mature judicial system – operating at the federal and state levels, and renowned for its interest in matters that affect the public – ensures that necessary checks and balances are in place.

India applies labour laws universally, to all regions of the country without exception. Similarly, as assured by the Government of India, inspections are also carried out on the same principle and this includes the SEZs. We understand that many of these inspections are carried out unannounced. India is the largest democracy in the world, and we cannot forget that it took one month for them to complete the general elections successfully. Such is the scale of reaching out to the population in certain parts of the country. In context, the recent efforts to enhance the regime of inspections by introducing technology is extremely progressive, as it will not only make the process related to inspection and follow-up more efficient, but also transparent. There is also no doubt that this development will contribute towards achieving the ultimate objective of impartial and expedient conclusion of issues. The provision of necessary equipment as well as facilities for transport will assist inspectors to better carry out their work on the ground. However, we also share the Employer spokesperson’s view that there remains a few areas such as the voluntary collection of data that will need further working on to ensure that the credibility of the system remains. Overall, we laud the efforts taken by the Government of India to improve inspection and bring it in line with its obligations of the provisions under the Convention. We also urge the Government to consider incorporating suggestions made by the Employers as part of its action plan to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of labour inspections.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking in name of IndustriALL Global Union, representing over 50 million workers worldwide. The Committee in its report in 2017 called upon the Government of India to, inter alia, ensure that effective labour inspections are conducted in all SEZs, and provide detailed information about the number of routine and unannounced visits as well as the dissuasive fines imposed against infractions.

From the data provided by the Government of India in its response, it appears that the number of inspections has increased in the last year. Nevertheless, it is still woefully inadequate. For example, there are 652 units in Vishakapatnam SEZ and only 74 inspections, including 28 with prior intimation, were carried out in the last three years. In the Noida SEZs spread across ten states and with 258 units, there were only 77 inspections and out of that, only 20 were unannounced. As in reality trade unions do not have access to the SEZs, these numbers cannot be independently corroborated, unfortunately.

Looking at the Government’s response, it appears that the violations are largely under-reported. One of the reasons is the very low number of inspections. From the data, no violations have been reported from the Vishakapatnam SEZ and the Mumbai SEZ. It does not seem to be correct information, as it belies belief that out of 343,572 workers employed in 652 units in Vishakapatnam SEZ, no law was violated. Similarly with the Mumbai SEZ, out of 91,470 workers employed in 323 units, there were no violations at all. The actions taken, or rather the lack of action, following the violations reported are also a matter for concern.

The fact remains that the primary function of development commissioners, which is to ensure speedy development of the SEZ and promotion of exports, clashes with the rights of workers, particularly with regard to safety and health. Given that those rights can be in contradiction to production targets, especially in export-oriented industries, the delegation of powers of the labour inspectors to the development commissioners creates a conflict of interest. A development commissioner may not always be able to be impartial when faced with safety and health issues arising from production pressures. This undermines the very reason for inspections.

In some states such as Jharkhand, Karnataka, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, as per the SEZ policies of such states, there is a provision for placement of an officer from the Labour Department under the supervision of the development commissioner. Therefore, even if there is no delegation of the power, the labour officer is not independent but works under the office of the development commissioner and that again undermines the inspections conducted. There are many studies that show that labour laws are violated with total impunity in SEZs. IndustriALL considers that an impartial, independent inspection system is absolutely necessary to even begin to address such violations.

Government member, China – The Chinese delegation has listened attentively to the remarks of the Indian Government. We have noted that the Indian Government has established a labour inspectorate system and has empowered the labour inspectors who is a necessary authority to fulfil its function. The labour inspectors in India are growing in numbers and are equipped with special technologies. India is carrying out the necessary labour legislation reform so as to better implement the functions and the obligations as indicated by Convention No. 81 under its new legal framework. India has already published the progress on this front on the website of the India Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Chinese delegation supports the Indian Government to continue its efforts to promote the reform of the labour legislation, support the efforts of the Indian Government to perfect the labour inspectorate system, and we hope the ILO will provide the necessary support.

Worker member, Malaysia – The Inspector Raj is now self-regulation. “Inspector Raj” is the demonized name for labour inspection for the private sector in India. “Inspector Raj” is used by employers and governments to vilify, ridicule and stigmatize labour inspection and the inspectorate system. It is also used as a symbol of the overregulated state that hinders the free market, productivity and investments to thrive in India. The Government’s response to the overregulation is deregulation. They have introduced a self-certification labour inspection system. Employers send in reports certifying their compliance with inspection regulations, which is taken to be true with no built-in verification opportunity. Start-up companies are exempted from labour inspections for three to five years. They can also self-certify through mobile apps. Inspections by inspectors will only occur after a credible complaint, filed in writing and approved by at least one senior labour inspector.

The self-certification system is contrary to the Convention. It prevents inspections without notice. It allows inspections only where there is a valid complaint. It prevents the free access of inspectors without prior authorization and shifts the focus of the Government from resourcing the labour inspectorate. The Government of India has failed to provide credible data on the frequency and thoroughness of inspections, results of labour inspections and verification of information supplied by the employers under the self-certification system.

The Government is proposing to change the name of inspectors to facilitators, which is to shift the attention from prosecution and sanction after inspections to business promotions.

Let me remind the Government of the Bhopal gas tragedy and the steps taken thereafter to strengthen labour inspections to prevent such disasters. The Government must not take India backwards. The Government must reverse course. The Government must stop stigmatizing labour inspections. The Government must stop blaming labour inspections for its inability to address the challenges of the economy. We call on the Government of India to prioritize labour inspections in compliance with its obligations under the Convention.

The Indian Government is desperately attempting to mislead this esteemed house of its compliance of the Convention. The Government is breaking up the inspectorate systems. It is therefore necessary for this house to intervene urgently to protect the lives of millions of workers in India.

Government member, Belarus – The delegation of the Republic of Belarus welcomes the detailed information of the Government of India on the report of the Committee of Experts regarding Convention No. 81, as well as efforts of India to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention.

We take a positive view of the system of web inspections, both at the central and the state level which does not conflict with international labour legislation. In our view, this system ensures application of the relevant labour laws. We welcome efficient dispute resolution mechanisms implemented by the labour inspection personnel in SEZs. Note that such zones have a conciliation officer in charge of amicable resolution of disputes that arise between workers and employers.

We welcome the openness and high level of cooperation of India with the ILO on the application of Convention No. 81. The Government of India continued to demonstrate its openness to dialogue and reconfirmed its strong commitment to the ILO and implementation of its relevant international obligations. The numerous actions taken by the Government of India must be recognized. We extend our strong support to the Government of India on the application of the Convention.

Worker member, Sweden – I take the floor on this very important issue on behalf of the Nordic workers. As we all know, 2.78 million people die every year as a result of occupational accidents and work-related issues. Labour inspections is an important way to tackle this and to ensure a safe working environment for all workers. For those inspections to be effective, the inspectors need to be provided with sufficient resources and the mandate to freely visit any workplace, both for scheduled and unannounced inspections.

As the Convention, which India ratified already in 1949, clearly states, all workers should be covered by labour inspections. We are therefore troubled by the information provided by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions that workers in the SEZs do not benefit from this right to have their conditions at work inspected, especially because of the reports that violations of all basic labour laws are regularly present in those zones. The pursuit of growth and to attract foreign capital to the special economic zones cannot be paid by excluding those companies from their obligations to follow labour law and to accept to be inspected by the authorities.

As various human rights organizations have raised, there is a huge number of workers in forced and child labour in India. The Global Slavery Index estimates that on any given day in 2016 there were nearly 8 million people living in modern slavery in India. This is one of the things that could be identified and dealt with through systematic and thorough labour inspections.

We therefore urge the Government of India to follow the conclusions from the Committee in 2017 and ensure that all workers, also those working in the SEZs, will be covered by labour inspections, as clearly stated in the Convention.

Government member, Myanmar – We welcome the delegation of India and thank them for their comprehensive information. Myanmar recognizes India’s commitment to promote and achieve sustained inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent working conditions for all. Myanmar welcomes the efforts made by India for improving its current inspection systems. We note with appreciation that India provides data and statistics regarding its implementations of Convention No. 81 to the ILO.

We believe that fresh recruitment of more than 560 inspectors and provisions of relevant facilities in various states in India contribute further for affirmative and responsible inspections. Moreover, Myanmar recognizes that effective dispute resolution mechanisms are diligently implemented by labour inspectors, and the spirit of tripartism has increased in SEZs, by promotions of collaborations between employers and workers, to ensure better working conditions at workplaces.

As a result of these initiatives and appropriate labour inspection systems, the relatively lower violation numbers represented in the last three years statistical data on labour inspections in SEZs, Myanmar believes that India is on the right track, and with further cooperation with the ILO and increased tripartism, it will successfully implement the Convention.

Worker member, Zimbabwe – In 2017, I was here and the case of India concerning this Convention was discussed and recommendations were made. Today India is here again with the same issues. It is now two years, there is no compliance. Now India is in its third year of defiance. This is a very unfortunate situation.

The Committee of Experts found that the Government of India continued to submit general information that do not enable the Committee to make an informed assessment of the protection of workers in SEZs. India is in breach of Articles 2 to 4 of the Convention. Furthermore, a failure to provide adequate inspectors with powers to conduct their work and power to prosecute offenders is a serious neglect of responsibility by the Government of India.

Labour inspection is an essential part of the labour administration system, with a fundamental function of enforcement of labour legislation to foster compliance. It also provides technical information and advice to employers and workers concerning the most effective means of complying with the legal provisions. This dual nature means that labour inspection plays a key role to ensure fairness and respect for rights in the workplace. It ensures good governance of the labour market and an opportunity to timeous response to changes in the labour market.

Some speakers here come to praise what is wrong; this is a worrying development in this discussion. If they cannot separate progress and promise, they become an accomplice to the injustice perpetrated to the working people of India. Promising is not progress but we expect action.

Once more, we call upon the Government of India to act in compliance, when they ratified the Convention they accepted the obligation attached to it. They therefore should comply with the Conventions with sincerity.

Government member, Iraq – The Government of Iraq would like to support the statement made by the representative of India. We appreciate all of the initiatives and measures adopted by the Indian Government to ensure the implementation of Convention No. 81. We note that today, India has reformed its Labour Code and has made it more modern and more in line with Convention No. 81 and other international standards.

We note that India sees to the respect of the Labour Code and is cooperating with both workers’ and employers’ organizations. We would like to point out that India is one of the largest countries in the world, is the greatest democracy and is the second country that joined the ILO, and India has ratified the ILO Constitution as soon as it was created. We believe that the wish of India to cooperate with the ILO deserves encouragement from our side. Therefore, we would encourage India to continue its efforts.

Government member, Kazakhstan – Kazakhstan notes India’s commitments to fully implement its obligations under the ILO, including Convention No. 81. We also note that the detailed and thorough report of the Government representative today, as well as the remarks by the Employer spokesperson. We take into account commitments by the Government to strengthen this inspection system, ensure inclusiveness and transparency and work with social partners and the ILO. We believe that the Government of India takes all relevant measures to address the issue of the Convention.

Government member, Russian Federation – First of all, we would like to thank the distinguished representative of the Government of India for a constructive approach to the matter at hand, the fulfilment of the provisions in Convention No. 81 which regulates the creation of a framework system for labour inspection, allowing the country itself to choose its own approach within that framework. India is seeking to improve the application of said Convention, and we are confident that, in the near future, India will take exhaustive measures to provide further information requested by the Committee of Experts.

With regard to the observations relating to a number of different cases in these SEZs, we would like to note that the preferential application of the particular provisions in this area has been covered by the information, and we are sure that the measures taken by the Government are well founded.

We believe that the provisions of the Convention are exclusively technical in nature and that the technical comments that have been made will be dealt with by the Government. And we are sure that it is necessary to take into account not just the application in practice, but also the context a State is dealing with. What is important is for a State to show a constructive approach and cooperation with the ILO. We believe that that is something that should be encouraged. We very much hope that the Committee will note with satisfaction the information provided by India, and will close the consideration of this case, noting a satisfaction.

Government member, Philippines – The Philippines notes with compliment the submissions of India with respect to the numerous reforms put in place to give full effect to the Convention at hand. Based on the detailed information provided by India as already published in the Committee website, India has a comprehensive system of labour legislation and an elaborate system of labour inspectorates, both at the central and the state level. In law and practice, all of its labour laws are applicable and enforceable in all geographical regions including the SEZs. Labour inspections are also conducted in all SEZs.

The information also indicates the details of the inspections conducted from 2016 up to the present, including the number of announced and unannounced inspections; status of enforcement in the three years; number of enterprises inspected; workers covered; offences reported; violations detected; criminal prosecutions launched; penalties imposed and fines collected.

In its submission, India further accounts for the total number of labour inspectors, number of vehicles provided and other human and material resources in connection with its inspection function. Other significant reforms are also instituted to ensure its compliance with its obligation under the Convention. The Philippines thus trusts that India will remain committed to its obligations under Convention No. 81, and to continue its constructive engagement with all its social partners.

Finally, the Philippines requests the ILO, including its supervisory bodies, to continue providing its member States the needed technical assistance and guidance to ensure full compliance with Conventions with the end in view of a work for a brighter future.

Government member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – The Plurinational State of Bolivia thanks the Government of India for the information presented in relation to the Convention. We welcome the detailed statistics provided by India, which show an increase in the number of inspections carried out in special economic zones in 2018 compared to the previous biennium. We also highlight the commitment shown by the Government of India to promoting inclusive and sustainable economic development based on equity and decent work conditions for all. In this way, we note with interest the measures currently in place to address complaints and improve working conditions. Consequently, we encourage the Government of India to continue taking measures to ensure compliance with the Convention.

Government member, Bangladesh – We welcome the efforts of India for the application of the ILO Convention No. 81 concerning labour inspection in the country, particularly in improving its labour inspection system in the SEZs. It is encouraging that more than 550 new inspectors have been recruited in various states of India to strengthen labour inspection in the country. For a smooth and efficient delivery of duties of the labour inspectors, they have been provided logistics support. We appreciate that India has initiated a recodification of all central labour laws, to simplify, rationalize, and amalgamate various provisions to enhance the compliance of the legislation. Considering the progress made, we call on the Committee to take into account the significant efforts and progress made by the Government of India to address the issues raised in the complaint.

Government member, Brazil – Brazil thanks the Government of India for the presentation of detailed information to the consideration of this Committee. Brazil shares India’s unease with a wide range of aspects of the supervisory system and in particular the drafting of the lists of cases for examination at the Conference. This Committee is far from conforming to best practices in the multilateral system. A strong, effective and legitimate ILO, adapted to the contemporary challenges is of interest to all, governments, workers and employers. Looking forward to a future with prosperity, decent work and more jobs, the ILO should increase cooperation and partnerships, while reviewing its standards supervisory system towards transparency, objectivity, impartiality and true tripartism.

The information from the Government shows that it is committed to promoting and achieving sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment opportunities, equity and decent working conditions for all. We reiterate that in Brazil’s view, national circumstances, capabilities and legal frameworks ought to be fully taken into account in the examination of all cases before this Committee. India’s is a case in point, in as much as the enforcement of the relevant provisions of various labour acts is secured through a system of labour inspectorates, both at the central and the state level. A separate labour inspection machinery works at the state level to ensure enforcement of the legal provisions relating to the service conditions of workers.

Moreover, SEZs are an important policy initiative for India within the remit of its national sovereignty. I recall that according to the relevant legal provisions the central Government shall have no authority to relax any law relating to the welfare of the labour in the special economic zones. All labour laws are applicable in SEZs and the rights of the workers therein are protected by a strong legal framework. Special arrangements are in place for SEZs whose territories extend beyond one single state in order to secure efficiency and avoid conflicts of interest.

Government representative – I thank you for this opportunity to respond to some of the observations made by the distinguished speakers and reiterate the Government of India’s views on the issue of effective enforcement of labour laws in the country and compliance with Convention No. 81. I also thank the distinguished delegates who participated in the deliberations. We have taken note of all the comments and suggestions provided by the representatives of Employers, Workers and Government.

I would like to inform the Committee that a wide spectrum of data with respect to SEZs regarding number of employees, number of enterprises, number of inspections carried out in SEZs, both announced and unannounced, number of violations, prosecutions and convictions have been provided by the Government. Besides the elaborate data on SEZs, statistics on inspection machinery has also been provided with respect to central and state spheres. As far as enforcement of labour laws is concerned, we wish to submit that India has a very elaborate system of labour legislations and we agree that the intent on the legislation may only be achieved through effective enforcement. The enforcement of the various labour laws has been prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act and is secured to a system of labour inspectorates, both at the state as well as the central level. The system of inspection and follow-up action exists in the formal prosecution launch and convictions done in courts of law.

The data speaks for itself. The date of inspection in the central sphere indicates that 6,000 violations were detected during the last three years and 55,000 criminal prosecutions were launched against the offenders, amongst which 38,000 cases penalties were imposed. An amount of INR307 million Indian rupees was collected as fines. At the state level, during the last three years 395,000 offences were reported and 642,000 violations were detected. In 71,000 cases, criminal prosecutions were launched and an amount of INR236 million was collected as fines.

I would like to highlight that during the last three years, 620 cases were reporting in seven SEZs in which 18 violations were detected. In 166 cases, criminal prosecutions were launched and in 58 cases, penalties convictions were ordered. Enforcement mechanism in India is multi-layered and involves physical inspection system, claim authorities, appeal authorities, tribunal at central and state government levels, supported by on-line portals at central and state level.

I would like to inform the esteemed Committee regarding the issue of delegation of powers to development commissioners in SEZ. The delegation of power to the development commissioners of SEZ in no way implies dilution of power of enforcement by a labour inspector. The SEZ Acts clearly states that the role of development commissioner shall be to supervise and monitor inspection systems in the SEZ. All state labour inspectors are drawing the salary from the respective consolidated funds of the state government and function independently to enforce labour laws. The provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act and Employees State Insurance Act, which are central legislations are applicable on all SEZ also. It is emphasized that the Employees’ Provident Fund Act provides social security benefit to about 60 million workers and ESIC Act provides the health insurance benefit to 36 million workers. The enforcement of both the Acts is being done stringently by an independent inspectorate system of central Government in all establishments of the country, including the SEZ. The inspections which are being conducted are 100 per cent unannounced. The above arguments strengthen that SEZs have a fully operational inspection system in place which aims at enforcement of various labour laws.

I would like to clarify to the esteemed Committee regarding the less number of violations in the SEZs in spite of increasing the number of inspections in SEZ by five times, specifically in Mumbai and Vishakhapatnam. As highlighted in the opening remarks of India, a robust agreement addressing mechanism through e-portal is present at various levels of governance which provides every worker, including of an SEZ, with the opportunity to raise their problems directly to the Government instead of it being escalated into a violation and then getting it detected by the inspectorate. It is an example of use of technology to bring governance at the doorstep of the citizen and take preventive measures for their welfare. The efficacy of the existing system may be highlighted by the fact that in the last three years, about 80,000 complaints have been registered at the central government’s e-portal with the disposal percentage of 95 per cent. Further, for the effective implementation of the Employees’ Provident Fund, about 1 million grievances have been received during the last four years with the average disposal rate of 98 per cent. This is an illustration of a preventive, responsive and efficient enforcement mechanism.

We believe that use of technology in administration will promote minimum government with maximum governance. It will promote transparency, reduce corruption, enhance time-bound response and make the overall system more efficient. In conformity with this vision, the concept of self-certification schemes is being implemented wherein the employer provides complete information about the enforcement of the labour laws. I would like to reiterate that self-certification is not undermining the inspection system however, it complements the inspection system as it facilitates the examination of the records beforehand and understand the issues in advance before making physical inspection.

I would like to inform the Committee that India supports collective bargaining and social dialogue as we firmly believe that it works as a safety valve that prevents escalation of industrial disputes and promotes industrial peace and harmony. Accordingly, as per the legal provisions of the Trade Union Act, the formation of trade unions is permitted in every establishment, including those located in the SEZs. There is no restriction on trade union activity in the SEZs and about ten trade unions have presence in the SEZs. In fact, the Government engages with the trade unions frequently before making any policy decision related to labour issues. Most of the boards and committees constituted by the Government, like advisory board on minimum wages, social security, provident fund, committee on welfare of unorganized workers, etc. are mandatorily of tripartite nature and indicate involvement of all social partners in policy decisions.

On the issue raised on proposed labour reforms, we would like to clarify that the intention of labour reforms being carried out in India is to enhance compliance of labour laws, simplify procedures, reduce multiplicity of authorities, have uniform definitions and provide legislation which is in sync with changing times and caters to all categories of workers with the emergence of new forms of employment. I would like to inform the esteemed Committee that the Government, while framing the Labour Codes, had exhaustive consultation with all social partners, state governments, technical and legal experts. Consultations have also been held with the experts from the ILO during the process. The comments of the general public who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the reforms is also sought by placing the draft legislation on the website of the Government and sufficient time is given for their comments. The suggestions received are compiled, examined, considered and incorporated in the proposed legislation.

I wish to inform the Committee that, during the process of drafting of Labour Codes, about nine tripartite meetings were held. The proposed Labour Codes in no way intend to or propose to weaken the inspection system in the country. In fact, it enhances the role of the inspector by adding the preventive duties and responsibilities to his usual duties of inspection. Further, the inspections as proposed in the Labour Code would be unannounced and prior notice is not required to be given before inspection. The provision of appellate authority is provided at various levels to ensure that the principle of natural justice is followed. Though the discussion of elaborate provisions of Labour Code is not related with Convention No. 81, however, I would like to clarify that the applicability threshold for a factory has not been enhanced from the existing ten to 40. In fact, the threshold of other establishments is not proposed to be changed.

I would put on record that the Codes are still at pre-legislative state and are subject to modification. The Government is conscious of its commitment made to labour standards through the ratification of Conventions and will give due regard to the same while framing legislations. I would now request our Secretary to give concluding comments.

Another Government representative – We are committed to the labour reforms through the appropriate tripartite consultation. We are a nation of 500 million workers, including 0.2 per cent workers employed in SEZs and are committed to the welfare of all workers through innovative and technology-based mechanisms.

We have provided substantial evidence to indicate that the provisions of the Convention are being implemented under the enforcement mechanism prevalent in India, including SEZ, which is not in violation of the provisions of the Articles of the Convention. Article 2 that provides for a system of labour inspection which is applicable to all workplaces, is complied with by the applicability of the inspection system through all instruments, including that of the SEZs. The labour inspection system in India, which is under the supervision of the Central Government for the establishments of the central sphere and under State Labour Department for the state sphere is as per Article 4 of the Convention.

In the case of SEZs, the delegation of powers to relevant development commissioners who, ultimately report about the inspections to the State Labour Department, is not in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. Similarly, Article 23, which states that the labour inspection in commercial workplaces will be applicable, which is enforceable by the labour inspectorate, is also being complied with. The relevant labour laws applicable to commercial places are being enforced by the inspection system through the officers who are given the powers of labour inspector by the appropriate government. As regards to the compliance with Articles 10 and 11, the statistical data provided indicates that there is an increase in the number of inspectors who are provided with all facilities to undertake the inspection.

Lastly, a labour inspector does not provide any notice to the employer before undertaking any inspection in the establishment, as 100 per cent inspections in the central sphere are unannounced. Even in the state sphere also, 91.7 per cent inspections are unannounced. The inspection system does comply with Article 23 of the Convention. The proposed provisions in the Labour Code also do not place restrictions on the inspector to enter the premises or to give prior information to the employers. However, to break the nexus between the employer and the employee, the randomized computerized system is being promoted. In view of these facts, it is submitted that India believes and implements the labour standards completely, as enforcement is crucial to achieve the intent of the labour legislation.

India feels that the substantive issues raised in the case have been adequately responded to by us in a series of communications since the year 2015. The Committee has also noted our response sent in May 2019. In view of the detailed statistics provided and our oral reply, we request that this case may be closed. Lastly, we would like to request the Chair of the Committee to submit the draft conclusions on our case well in advance for the consideration by the membership of this Committee to ensure that it is reflective of the discussions held and for the sake of consensual adoption on 20 June.

Chairperson – Thank you to the delegation of India for their participation in the Committee’s work this afternoon, for those concluding remarks and for the information you have provided. In relation to your last comment, the process for the drafting and delivery of the conclusions is outlined in document D.1, so I would refer you to that document.

Worker members – First of all, we noted the comments of the Employers’ group with regard to the submission made by a trade union organization, and the suggestion that such submissions should be subjected to the approval of the Government and other social partners is highly problematic and inappropriate. Representative organizations have the right to submit observations under the Constitution, and such a prior approval that the Employers are seeking in this case would severely limit the freedom of opinion of the social partners. And we trust that the Employers would not like to see such an evolution of the reporting system.

Other social partners and the Government are indeed invited to respond to the comments sent by the trade unions. But, as we have seen in the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Government of India has failed in fully responding to the persistent allegations that have been brought repeatedly to their attention.

Regarding the Government’s compliance with Convention No. 81, there can be no effective compliance with any system of inspections, including labour inspections, without the inspectorates enjoying legislative and policy priority and adequate resources. We call on the Government to ensure that effective labour inspections are conducted in all SEZs. In this regard, the Government should send a complete and detailed report to the Committee of Experts that includes the number of routine and unannounced visits as well as the dissuasive fines imposed against infractions.

The Government must put an end to the operation of the self-certification scheme, which allows employers to self-certify without any credible verification by government officials. The self-certification of workplaces as well as the necessity test that is proposed raise very serious concerns. The Government failed to demonstrate how the self-certificates are verified and has not pointed at any other safeguards put into place to live up to its obligation to ensure effective labour inspections in all workplaces. We call for an immediate review, and indeed reversal, of the self-certification system. It is our expectation that the Government undertakes all necessary measures to ensure that all workplaces, including in the informal economy, are liable to inspection; and that labour inspectors have full powers to undertake routine and unannounced visits as well as to initiate legal proceedings.

We remind the Government that under Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81, the central inspection authority is obliged to publish an annual report on the work of the inspection services under its control and supervision. This is the obligation of the federal Government in respect of both federal and centrally coordinated State’s activities.

When it comes to the ongoing labour law reforms, we urge the Government to enter into full and frank negotiations with the social partners in order to ensure that the amendments introduced are compliant with International Labour Standards, and specifically Convention No. 81. Specific attention should be paid on the impact of the limitations put on labour inspections in the informal economy. This is where the vast majority of the workers are and this regrettably also where the effective labour protections are the weakest. This is particularly a concern when it comes to occupational health and safety.

We have now discussed these issues on numerous occasions and the Government has still not provided the adequate level of information that would allow the Committee of Experts to make a full assessment accompanied by concrete recommendations. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate that the Government accepts an ILO high-level mission in order to evaluate progress and to develop a pathway to reform in the form of a tripartite action plan.

Employer members – To begin, I think I may have perhaps phrased things a little unclearly in the sense that the Employers are in no way suggesting that unions should seek approval of anybody to make their complaint. That is absolutely their right. I think the observation I was making was that the complaint as it is, it is self-contained and sufficient information, and it would be good if the process of investigating and lodging the complaint in the report and bringing it forward to this Committee was better understood. I think we have heard throughout this discussion, especially from the Government, that there is a lot more going on than would be evident from the original complaint. It would have been possibly more upfront if that process had been better investigated. That is my point. It is certainly not about a union not having the right to complain. That is absolutely their right.

I think too, the comment is that, as we have heard from the Government and as I said, there has been a lot going on that we had not heard about before and, in that sense, that is good. But, sorry India, that doesn’t let you off the hook completely because I think that there are a number of issues that do need to be dealt with, not necessarily an issue of things being bad, but things could be better and I think that is probably the kind of tone that our comments are directed at. For instance, on the issue of the adequacy of resources for labour inspectors, we have heard and we accept that labour inspectors in general are provided with everything they need to do their jobs – cars, laptops, phones, and so on. But that there seem to be some instances where there are some less ideal circumstances, such as labour inspectors being required to use things like taxis and the like. Our observation is that that can be an inhibiting factor in the carrying out of their work and so one recommendation is that we urge the Government to ensure that all labour inspectors have the equipment and facilities necessary for them to carry out their duties in a completely unfettered way.

The second recommendation in that regard is that the Government continue to provide information on the number of labour inspectors, both at the central and state levels, but also in relation to the ratio of labour inspectors to people because, as we heard in parts of the discussion, the number of labour inspectors has increased very significantly but when you compare that to the working populations and the areas that they serve, it may still be an issue of adequacy that needs to be addressed.

Turning now to the issue of data and data provision. The comment I made earlier and make it again that some aspects of data collection even with the advent of web-based systems is still conducted on a voluntary basis, and that has several issues attached to it, one of which is being voluntary, it means that some of it may not come in on time, or even at all, and it may not necessarily come in standard formats, all of which can diminish the comprehensiveness and usefulness of information at the national and state levels. So we would urge the Government to take steps to ensure that the data collection process is as standardized and comprehensive as it needs to be to operate and inform the processes of labour inspection and regulatory processes as they need to be.

Just turning now to the issue of self-certification. Unlike the Workers, we do not believe that self-certification of itself is a bad thing, the issue for us is whether or not it is a substitute for labour inspection work. Our belief is that self-certification can be a powerful tool in assisting employers to understand what issues are deficient in terms of their compliance and to then take self-regulated steps to achieve those things. That does not absolve them from inspection, or independent audit, but, if it is working properly, it does give them the chance that when an inspector does call unannounced, that their systems are working and that there are not violations. So it is a self-promoting, self-regulating process, but our belief and our view is that it should not be a substitute for a labour inspection. Given that we do not have enough information, we would call upon the Government to provide in future reports an assurance that self-certification does not diminish the capacity of the State to independently regulate an audit through the means of labour inspection.

With respect to the free access of labour inspectors to workplaces, we note that the work going on in the regulatory reform and legislative reform, does not appear to pick up specifically the rights of labour inspectors to access workplaces and we would urge that those sorts of issues are in fact included. We note that this work is ongoing and that modifications are still possible. This would be one modification that we would absolutely suggest that is made.

With respect to access of unions to workplaces, we note that the Government is working on reducing the thresholds required to establish unions, and we note also their assurance that there is no restriction whatsoever on unions forming at anywhere in their economy, including in SEZs. We would look forward to seeing evidence that that is in fact true in the future.

We would call upon the Government, as have the Workers, to complete the work on the OSH Bill and the Wages Bill and the various other pieces of legislation that have been referred to. They seem to have been in the system for a rather long time, and it seems well due time that these are completed to the level that we have been talking about.

So with all of these points in mind, we call upon the Government to take measures: to ensure that all of the legislation that has been worked upon is in conformity with the Convention; to ensure that the Code of Wages and the OSH and Working Conditions Act explicitly allow labour inspectors on their own initiative to enter workplaces without prior notice, not limited to situations where complaints have been made or indictors exist for labour law violations; to ensure that the Code of Wages and the OSH Working Conditions Act guarantee the discretion of labour inspectors anywhere in the country, including SEZs, to initiate prompt legal and administrative proceedings without prior warning; and, lastly, to ensure that the acts that are worked on contain thresholds that are appropriate and realistic for the establishment of both workers’ and employers’ organizations to allow them to flourish and of freedom of association conditions anywhere in the country.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Taking into account the discussion, The Committee calls upon the Government to:

- ensure that the draft legislation, in particular the Code on Wages, and the OSH and Working Conditions Act, is in compliance with Convention No. 81;

- ensure that effective labour inspections are conducted in all workplaces, including the informal economy and in all SEZs;

- promote the collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers, or their organizations, in particular when it comes to the implementation of inspection reports;

- increase the resources at the disposal of the central and state government inspectorates;

- ensure that labour inspectors have full powers to undertake routine and unannounced visits and to initiate legal proceedings;

- pursue its efforts towards the establishment of registers of workplaces at the central and state levels;

- provide detailed information on the progress made with respect to measures taken to improve the data collection system, enabling the registration of data in all sectors;

- ensure that the operation of the self-certification scheme does not impede or interfere with the powers in functions of labour inspectors to carry out regular and unannounced visits in any way, as this is only a complementary tool; and

- submit its annual report on labour inspection to the ILO.

Taking into account the importance of applying the legislation effectively in practice, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of routine and unannounced visits, as well as on the dissuasive sanctions imposed against infractions to guarantee the enforcement of labour protections in practice.

The Committee invites the Government to accept a Direct Contact Mission before the next International Labour Conference and to elaborate a report in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on progress made in the implementation of the Convention in law and practice to the Committee of Experts by the 1 September 2019.

Government representative – I wish to thank you for giving us the floor to make the remarks on the conclusions made without any consultations with the Government members.

It is surprising that the International Labour Organization which stands for social justice, inclusion and equal rights for all but follows the procedures mechanisms and supervisory system which is undemocratic, non-inclusive, non-transparent, biased and being presented with a fait accompli. We have already raised the procedural lapses of the system and are still awaiting information from the Office. Our delegation cannot be a part of non-transparent, non-inclusive process that does not accurately represent the discussions in the CAS. The conclusions are neither reflective of the discussions and deliberations held in that Committee nor is the so-called consensus as per agreed working methods. The governments and employers had clearly expressed that the case be dropped as pointed out by the employers. In the first instance, the case should not have been admitted on the basis of frivolous complaint of this nature. It may be worth emphasizing that this is also not a double-footnoted case or a case of serious failure by a member State. To respect its reporting or other standards related obligations. The contents of the proposed conclusions are thus unduly disproportionate.

India is a large country with immense development priorities and challenges. Over the past four years, we have taken several steps after extensive consultations with the social partners to ensure the rights of our workers, their welfare is the first and the foremost our responsibility as they are the citizens of India who have recently participated in an electoral exercise that was the largest in the history of mankind. The information we have shared on a voluntary basis over the past four years was in the spirit of cooperation, further detailed statistics and explanation on each point raised by the Committee provided was supplemented by a detailed oral reply by the Government. It was also highlighted in the statistics that there has been increase in the number of inspections, inspectors and unannounced inspections. There has also been increase in number of prosecutions and penalties imposed. It is reiterated that the Government of India is committed to implement Convention No. 81, which has not been violated in any manner. In view of this, we fail to understand the reasonableness or constructiveness of the conclusions. It appears that there are other issues raised in the complaint, other extraneous factors were taken into consideration while deciding the conclusions of the case. In addition to being an outcome of an incorrect, biased, non-transparent and unfair process.

We have also come to know that the recommendations from the Employers’ group have not been developed through consensus as required by established procedures and that the Chair of this Committee has been informed in writing about the same. The conclusions are not reflective of the viewpoints expressed by the two constituents, Government and the Employers of the tripartite pillars.

The general consensus is being ignored in the Committee. The stand of the country was supported by all representatives of the Government who participated in the deliberations.

The Committee on the Application of Standards, which stands for tripartism, has not taken into account the views of the Government, which is the ultimate policymaking and implementing agency, before the conclusions are arrived. Further, the copy of the conclusions is not given well in advance to the member countries. In this regard, we had requested to furnish the copy of the conclusions in advance to India in the statement made on 18 June 2019 at CAS.

In view of the above, the Government delegation is not in a position to accept the conclusions of the Committee. In its 100th year, the ILO needs to reform its structures and processes especially the supervisory systems to make it genuinely more representative, transparent, consensual and inclusive of all tripartite constituents including the governments. This is vital to ensure its credibility and acceptability. We see no merit in further participating in a deeply flawed and non-constructive process that needs to be urgently remedied in the Centenary year of the Organization. India takes this opportunity to reaffirm its strongest commitment to international labour standards and to its application in law and practice in accordance with our specific context.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)



The Government provided the following written information.

Tripartite consultation on labour laws amendments/enactment of new laws

India has an elaborate labour legislation system which operates through a federal structure. The country has ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) and tripartite consultations are an integral feature of the labour law reform process. Based on the recommendation of the Second National Commission on Labour, the Government has taken steps to broadly codify the existing 44 central Labour Acts into four Labour Codes, including: the draft Code on Wages; the draft Code on Industrial Relations; the draft Code on Social Security and Welfare; and the draft Code on Occupational Safety and Health, in relation to which drafts have been prepared, except for the Code on Safety and Working Conditions, for which the drafting is at an advanced stage. In accordance with the pre-legislative consultation policy of the Government, the draft Codes were uploaded on the website of the Ministry of Labour and Employment for a period of one month inviting suggestions from the public/concerned stakeholders. Subsequently, these draft Codes were also discussed in tripartite consultation meetings, involving representatives from the central trade unions, employers’ associations, state governments and relevant central ministries. The Government has also consulted the ILO on a continuous basis for obtaining relevant technical assistance. It may be noted that the abovementioned Codes have not been adopted yet and are at the consultation stage only. The Government is also continuously engaged in amending important legislations with a view to making labour legislations attuned to the emerging requirements. Tripartite consultations constitute an integral component in formulating the relevant amendments. Some of the major amendments undertaken by the Government during the period 2015–17 with tripartite consultation concerned the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 2017 and the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015. None of the legislation adopted has had any impact on the labour inspection system, or on the principles enshrined in Convention No. 81. The current national laws comply with the principles of Convention No. 81 and there is no intention on the part of the Government to move away from them. India has been taking, and would welcome in the future, technical assistance from the ILO in the legislative reform process.

The free initiative of labour inspectors to undertake labour inspections

As indicated in the last two reports submitted to the Committee of Experts in 2015 and 2016 and the report submitted to the Conference Committee in 2015, it shall be reiterated that no legislative amendments have been carried out to alter any of the existing provisions of the Acts that may dilute the provisions of Convention No. 81. Technology-driven governance reforms have been introduced to strengthen the system, provide for transparency and accountability in the enforcement of labour laws and reduce the complexity of compliance. The web-enabled setup has only provided for the prioritization of inspections in workplaces based on risk assessments. The new setup has not curtailed the powers of inspectors to undertake workplace inspections in case that an inspection is required. Moreover, except for some routine inspections (which do not even make up 10 per cent of the total of inspections) all other inspections are unannounced. In the case of routine inspections, prior notice may be given (at the discretion of the inspector) to enable the employer to produce records for verification. It is reconfirmed that where there is a complaint or information with regard to any labour law violation, the system allows for full discretion/freedom to undertake an inspection of such an establishment at any point in time as well as to initiate the actions prescribed in the corresponding laws. It is submitted for the consideration that the new system has enabled the inspectorates to better manage their inspection system and also to share the inspection information among agencies. A sizeable increase in the number of inspections is also witnessed since the launch of the new system. Details of the enforcement of various labour laws by the Central Labour Enforcement Agencies, including in relation to social security and safety in mines are provided in an annex to this submission. Thus, the new inspection scheme has not affected the role of labour inspectors to undertake labour inspections where they have reason to believe that a workplace is in violation of legal provisions or when they believe that workers require protection. We again reiterate that labour inspectors have complete discretion, in law as well as in practice, to initiate prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, where required.

Annual reports on labour inspection activities, and statistical information on labour inspections

Data is the basis for developing evidence-based policy initiatives. The Government has taken a number of steps over time to improve data on enforcement of labour legislation and labour inspection services. Data collection and reporting is done mainly by the Labour Bureau, a Department attached to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Government has also been obtaining technical assistance from the ILO to evaluate the data collection systems with a view to suggesting appropriate measures for improving their coverage and reliability. In fact, as requested by the Ministry, the ILO has undertaken an “Assessment of the Labour Statistics System in India” in 2014–15. The Labour Bureau receives statutory statistics relating to the central and state levels in the form of annual returns under various Labour Acts. In addition to these annual returns, monthly returns are being received on a voluntary basis. These statutory and voluntary returns are received under 11 Labour Acts in relation to which reports have been released by the Labour Bureau in 2013 and 2014. The Labour Bureau collects data on the enforcement of labour legislation in relation to the key legislation, i.e. the Factories Act, 1948, to be submitted through mid-year and annual returns. This data is compiled on an annual basis by the Labour Bureau and published as Statistics of Factories. The following statistics are attached to this submission: (1) detailed statistics for 2013, 2014 and 2015 in relation to 31 states/union territories concerning the number of factories inspected (under the Factories Act) and the number of factory inspectors; (2) information on the total number of labour inspectors in 2016 concerning some states; (3) information on the number of labour inspections undertaken in 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17 as well as violations detected (concerning all Acts under the jurisdiction of the states) in relation to the states from which this information was available; and (4) statistics on occupational accidents for 2013, 2014 and 2015 in relation to some states/union territories. The Labour Bureau has undertaken a project concerning the strengthening and modernization of the system for the collection of statistics from the states and establishments through the induction of technology, which is in the development phase. Upon implementation, the system for the collection and compilation of statistics shall be made online to the extent feasible. This will enable the Bureau to collect and compile timely statistics in the future. We take note of the recommendation of the Conference Committee regarding the annual labour inspection report and the registers of workplaces liable to inspection. The Government is willing to seek the technical advice of the ILO on the matter.

Self-certification and Occupational, Safety and Health (OSH) inspections undertaken by certified private agencies

India has replied in detail to the observations made by the Committee of Experts concerning the self-certification scheme during the 2015 session of the Conference Committee, which has been noted by the Committee of Experts in its latest comments. We again reiterate that the self-certification scheme has been launched by some states, and that in no case has it ever substituted the labour inspection system. It is a scheme to encourage voluntary and simpler compliance, without compromising the rights of workers. Establishments availing themselves of the self-certification scheme are not exempted from the inspection process. Where security deposits are prescribed with the self-certification, the scheme provides for their forfeiture whenever a violation is detected. India does not follow the system of private inspection services. The Government reaffirms its commitment to safeguard the interests of the working class while promoting a conducive working environment for inclusive growth and industrial harmony.

Delegation of inspection powers in special economic zones (SEZs) and statistical information on labour inspections in SEZs

There are seven SEZs zones in the country. In four zones, no powers have been delegated to the Development Commissioners of SEZs, whereas in another zone, which covers ten states, powers have been delegated only by one of these ten states. In two zones, powers have been delegated, while in one of these zones, no powers have been delegated under the Factories Act (which governs OSH regulations). Laws that are administered centrally have not been delegated in any of the zones. The Government has provided detailed statistics to the last Conference Committee and to the Committee of Experts in 2016 on inspections under various labour laws in individual states and SEZs, including on the number of inspectors, the number of units and the workers employed therein. This information is reiterated. The statistics on the enforcement of labour laws in SEZs where powers were delegated to the Development Commissioners is provided in an annex to this submission. In respect of the SEZs, where powers have not been delegated to the Development Commissioners, statistics are included in the inspection statistics of the different states, as no separate statistics are maintained. As recommended by the Conference Committee, the Government, in a tripartite meeting held on 30 May 2017, reviewed with the social partners whether the delegation of inspection powers from the Labour Commissioner to the Development Commissioner in SEZs has affected the quantity and quality of labour inspections. Representatives of the Department of Commerce, the Government of India, officers from the SEZs and state governments were also present in this meeting. Reiterating their commitment for fundamental principles and rights at work, the employer representatives appreciated the single window system for compliance under labour laws and encouraged the Government to promote voluntary compliance mechanisms. The employers’ representatives and state governments also expressed satisfaction concerning the present arrangements in relation to the delegation of inspection powers, while workers’ representatives, in general, expressed that not only the rights of workers in SEZs, but also in other workplaces should be protected. One workers’ representative did not agree with the views expressed by the representatives of the SEZs and the employers that the delegation of powers is working satisfactorily. However, he did not corroborate these statements with any statistics or specific instances. Accordingly, it was decided that the Government will institutionalize a system of regular review of the implementation of labour laws in SEZs. IT and ITES companies are registered under the states’ Shops and Establishment Acts and inspections therein are carried out by the state authorities, as the case may be and are included in the overall state’s statistics. No separate statistics are maintained for the IT/ITES sectors.

Free access of labour inspectors to workplaces

Reference is made to various labour laws providing for labour inspection powers. These laws provide that denying/preventing inspectors from accessing premises or records is an offence. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code also provides that preventing public servants from discharging their duties (including denying them access) is a criminal offence. There are no cases in which labour inspectors have not been able to access workplaces for inspections, hence the question of relevant statistics does not arise. The labour inspectors have the authority to avail themselves of assistance by the Police to compel access to workplaces, records or evidence whenever they face any concern. Labour inspectors can also initiate prosecutions in relation to persons denying them access to workplaces. It is reiterated that labour inspectors are guaranteed free access to undertake labour inspections where they have reason to believe that a workplace is in violation of legal provisions or where they believe that workers require protection (Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81).

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative referred to the constitutional structure of India, consisting of a federal setup and a defined distribution of powers between the centre (that is, the federal government) and the states (that is, the provincial governments), in which the centre and the states had concurrent powers to legislate and enforce labour laws. He said that India had a very elaborate system of labour legislation, which was secured through a system of labour inspection, both at the central level and the level of the states. Reviewing and updating labour laws was a continuous process to bring them in tune with the emerging needs of a globalized and knowledge-based economy, and included tripartite consultations. The issue of the scope and objectives of the legislative amendments and reforms made by the Government had been discussed during the 2015 session of the Committee. In this respect, he wished to reiterate the observations already made that no amendments to the scope of application of any labour laws had been enacted by the Government to exclude workers from the purview of labour laws. In fact, the Committee of Experts had not referred to any specific legislative action that had in any way diluted the provisions relating to labour inspections or the protection of workers, as provided for under the Convention. India followed the process of tripartite consultations in all its legislative reform initiatives. All proposed amendments to labour laws, or proposals for new laws, were discussed in appropriate tripartite forums, and only thereafter were the proposals carried forward. In this respect, he also referred to the written information that had been provided by the Government to the Committee on progress in respect of various laws that had been passed or were currently under consideration. Recalling the intervention made during the 2015 session of the Committee, he wished to add that the proposed Small Factory Bill and the proposed amendments to the Factories’ Act were also being re-examined and reviewed by the Government afresh. The Office had provided technical assistance and inputs on the proposed legislative changes, especially on the draft Labour Codes. The Government remained committed and would also welcome future ILO technical assistance. As stated in the written information provided by the Government to the Committee, none of the legislation that had been adopted had any impact on the labour inspection system, or on the principles of the Convention. Concerning the free initiative of labour inspectors to undertake labour inspections, the Government was committed to the obligations in the Convention that workplaces should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary. Labour inspectors had full discretion in law and practice to undertake inspections of workplaces at any point of time, as well as to initiate the action prescribed in law, without previous warning with respect to statistical information on labour inspection activities, the statistics requested by the Committee of Experts had been provided in the annex to the written submission of the Government to the Committee. He recalled that, in view of the federal structure of the country and the sovereignty of the states, which were mostly responsible for the subject of “labour”, there was no statutory mechanism for the states to furnish data to the central government. However, the Labour Bureau collected and compiled data on various labour-related matters from the states on a voluntary basis. In this respect, he referred to the written information provided to the Committee on a project for the strengthening and modernization of the system for the collection of statistics by the Labour Bureau. In relation to the absence of data on inspections in special economic zones (SEZs) by the states and in the information technology and information technology-enabled services (IT/ITES) sector, he explained that the Labour Bureau was currently not in a position to gather such data, but that there was indeed a need to strengthen the collection and compilation mechanism to enable such analyses, and ILO technical assistance in this respect would be welcome. Concerning the self-certification scheme, as already stated during the discussion of the case by the Committee in 2015, this scheme did not entail any relaxation of or substitute for statutory inspections, and workplaces remained subject to inspection, despite having subscribed to the self-inspection scheme. With reference to the delegation of inspection powers in SEZs, he emphasized that there had not been full delegation of labour inspection powers to the Development Commissioners in all SEZs, as further detailed in the written submission of the Government. Moreover, the delegation of powers in the zones in which it had been done had not diluted enforcement in any manner. It should be reiterated that Development Commissioners, who were very senior government officers, were fully responsible for the enforcement of labour laws in the SEZs, and could perform this duty without any conflict of interest. He also emphasized that a tripartite meeting had been held as requested by the Committee of Experts on whether the delegation of powers in SEZs had affected the quantity and quality of labour inspections. In this respect, he also reiterated the information provided in the written statement that the social partners had mostly considered that the delegation of powers was working satisfactorily. As indicated in the written submission, a regular review of the implementation of labour laws in the SEZs would be developed in due course. Working conditions in the IT/ITES sector were regulated by the provisions of the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act of the respective state governments. These establishments were inspected through regular labour inspections like any other establishments. However, as described above, the current data collection system did not permit the extraction of specific data concerning the IT/ITES sector, which was why the Government had been unable to provide such data. Concerning the free access of labour inspectors to workplaces he also reiterated the information provided in the written submission that labour inspectors were granted this right and there had not been any cases where they had not been able to access workplaces for inspection. He concluded that the substantive issues raised in the case had been adequately responded to by the Government in a series of communications since 2015. The last comments made by the Committee of Experts had not concerned non-compliance with the Convention, but had been primarily limited to seeking more information and statistics. In the absence of any substantive issue, he felt that this case should not continue to be examined by the Committee, and should be closed. The Government remained committed to labour welfare and the protection of labour rights and was willing to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to achieve the objective.

The Employer members recalled that the application of the Convention had previously been examined by the Committee in 2015 and on numerous occasions by the Committee of Experts in the last ten years. The examination of this case in 2017 was in fact a continuation of issues that had been dealt with by the Committee two years ago. While cases on the Convention often concerned the total failure of labour inspection, this case was being examined due to the fact that the Government had failed to provide information in reply to the 2015 conclusions of the Conference Committee or to the comments of the Committee of Experts. They understood India’s federal structure, with its central and state governments, but this structure did not justify that the procedure to provide the information requested by the Committee. The Employer members therefore recalled each point that had been raised by the Committee in its 2015 conclusions, highlighting that the Government had failed to provide information on almost all of the following points. With respect to detailed statistical information covering, at the central and state levels, all the matters set out in Article 21 of the Convention with a view to demonstrating compliance with Articles 10 and 16, and specifying as far as possible the proportion of routine and unannounced inspections and information in relation to the proportion of routine and unannounced visits in all SEZs. With respect to the arrangements for the verification of information supplied by employers making use of self-certification schemes, no information had been provided by the Government. With reference to the division of the responsibility of labour inspection between the state and central spheres for each law and regulation in question, no information had been provided by the Government. In relation to the requested explanation with reference to the relevant statistics, the extent to which the number of labour inspectors at the disposal of central and state government inspectorates were sufficient to ensure compliance with Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention, no information had been provided by the Government. With respect to detailed information on compliance with Article 12 of the Convention regarding access to workplaces, records, witnesses and other evidence, as well as the means available to require such access, no information had been provided by the Government. With reference to health and safety inspections undertaken by certified private agencies, including the number of inspections, the number of violations reported by such agencies, and compliance and enforcement measures taken, no information had been provided by the Government. Furthermore, in relation to the review, with the social partners, of the extent to which the delegation of inspection authority to Development Commissioners in SEZs had affected the quantity and quality of labour inspections, the Government had submitted information on a relevant tripartite meeting that had been held in May 2017. The Employer members recalled that the information provided had in fact been requested two years ago. With respect to ensuring that amendments to the labour laws, in consultation with the social partners, undertaken at the central or state level, complied with the provisions of the Convention, making full use of ILO technical assistance, the Government had indicated that this matter was in progress. The Government had now provided detailed statistics, but the information provided by the Government in its written submission had been received late. The Employer members emphasized that inclusion on the shortlist of cases to be discussed at the Committee should not have to be necessary to ensure the provision of the information requested by the Committee. When the Committee requested a Government to supply information, it expected to receive this information in a timely manner. They concluded that the Committee had started its session with the discussion of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting obligations. The case of India appeared to be a similar case, as information had been requested two years ago and not provided in time. While there seemed to have been progress and the case could be closed, they called on the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance with respect to the legislative reform.

The Worker members recalled that the Committee had last discussed the case in 2015, following the Government’s proposal to radically reform the labour inspection regime, to end the so-called “Inspector Raj”. In its conclusions, the Committee had requested detailed information, including labour inspection statistics, to better assess the efficacy of the labour inspection system. The written information provided by the Government to the Committee did not meet the requests made by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The Worker members aligned themselves with the comments made by the Employer spokesperson and the lack of information provided by the Government of India. They therefore requested the Government once again to explain its actions, which significantly weakened rather than strengthened the labour inspection regime, in clear violation of the Convention. They emphasized that only a committed, systematic effort by an expanded labour inspectorate could make a difference with regard to the widespread violations of labour laws in the country, including the very large number of child labour, forced labour, working time, occupational safety and health, and equality issues. The Worker members congratulated the Government of India on its recent ratification of the child labour Conventions, although this had not automatically been translated into concrete changes on the ground for working children. The Labour Inspectorate had an important role in changing the practice of employing children, and in ensuring that the new standards are in fact implemented. This required the strengthening of the Labour Inspectorate.

The Worker members reiterated their concerns as to the adoption of the legislation which had been pending for a long time, including the draft Small Factories Bill, 2015, the draft Labour Code on Wages, and the draft Labour Code on industrial relations. Those reforms would undermine the independence of inspectors in carrying out their duties and remove the potential for free access to workplaces without prior notice, which was essential for proper scrutiny of workplace conditions. They remained concerned that labour inspectors no longer had the power to decide which workplaces to inspect since the computerized system (the Shram Suvidha Portal) randomly determined the workplaces to be inspected based on information gathered from risk assessments. Employers were notified in advance of some categories of inspections (so-called optional inspections). Penalties could only be imposed after an inspector had issued a written order and given the employer additional time to comply. The Government’s explanation that emergency inspections were immediately carried out in the event of fatal or serious accidents and mandatory inspections were carried out in the two years following such accidents, merely served to highlight the failure of the inspection regime to prevent those accidents from occurring in the first instance. Labour inspectors needed to have free access to workplaces without prior notice and be able to administer adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions or for the obstruction of inspectors in the performance of their duties. There should be detailed records of instances denial of access or obstruction.

The Worker members expressed their concern at the rights of workers in SEZs, where working conditions were quite poor, especially as trade unions remained largely absent because of anti-union discrimination practices. The situation had worsened following the delegation of enforcement powers to Development Commissioners in several states, under the SEZ Rules, 2006. That represented a clear conflict of interest in light of their central function to attract investment. The legal framework in SEZs allowed the zone authorities rather than the Labour Commissioner to enforce the law. There had been an increase in violations of labour legislation, without the more effective safeguards of enforcement powers by state authorities. Accordingly, they urged the Government to effectively reform the labour inspection system in SEZs to ensure that workplaces were inspected in line with the provisions of the Convention. The Worker members also remained concerned that the labour inspectorate was extremely understaffed. According to the latest available statistics of the Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, which dated from 2011, for a total of 325,209 registered factories there were only 743 inspectors and the number of injuries stood at 29,837, of which 1,433 has been fatal. Child labour and other abuses of workers’ rights remained endemic in the garment sector, especially where factories were outsourced components of a global supply chain. It was clear that the labour inspection regime was incapable of protecting workers in all states and all industries. They urged the Government to hire an appropriate number of inspectors for the size of the workforce, and to ensure that they received the adequate training and the tools necessary to carry out inspections effectively. The Government’s reliance on self-inspection as a means of law enforcement was also a matter of concern. The very purpose of the labour inspection regime was subverted, as there was no mechanism for the verification of the information supplied. Yet self-assessments were among the primary sources of information used by the Central Analysis and Intelligence Unit, which monitored employers’ compliance with labour standards. There should be an independent means of verification by public inspectors, as opposed to self-certification by employers, who clearly had no incentive to report. They supported the call of the Committee of Experts for the Government to provide information on how self-certificates were verified by the labour inspectorate, as the written information provided to the Committee had not provided a response to that question. Regarding coverage of workplaces by inspectors, in line with the 2015 conclusions of the Conference Committee, and as requested by the Committee of Experts, the Worker members also called for proper scrutiny of occupational safety and health (OSH) inspections which were undertaken by certified private agencies. The function of OSH inspections should remain with the public authorities to secure effective recourse when violations occurred. Proper scrutiny also meant that the Government should provide statistics on the number of inspections, the number of violations reported by such private agencies, and the compliance and enforcement measures taken. The lack of information prevented the Committee of Experts from assessing the capacity of the inspection regime to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions concerning the protection of workers through an adequate number of labour inspectors and labour inspections. Unfortunately, the evidence showed that the labour inspection system was inadequate to achieve this purpose. There was a need for a discussion with the Government on the expansion of the Labour Inspectorate. Inadequate statistical information meant that it was not possible to determine accurately whether inspections were being carried out, whether workers had access to a remedy and whether employers were sanctioned when appropriate. The Worker members called on the Government to fully implement the conclusions and provide the requested information to the Committee Experts in time for its next report.

The Employer member of India explained that the Indian labour market was characterized by widespread informality, many medium-sized and small enterprises, and a Start-up Hub which was the largest in the world. At the same time, governance of work was traditionally jarred by rigid labour laws and a cumbersome regulatory regime. Recent legislative decisions (including a complete ban on child labour, the increase in the number of weeks of paid maternity leave and initiatives in relation to the payment of wages) were an indication of the country’s commitment to protect and promote labour rights and welfare. Care was also taken to provide for formal employment.

Indian employers wished to indicate that the initiatives taken by the Government in recent years had basically been undertaken to address certain needs. First, to overcome the problem of the multiplicity of labour laws, the Government had proposed the consolidation of labour laws into four codes to cover: (a) wages; (b) industrial relations; (c) social security; and (d) occupational safety and health. Tripartite discussions had already been held with regard to wages and industrial relations, and the corresponding legislative procedure was under way. The views of the social partners on the draft code on social security had also been obtained. Second, to address the issue of compliance costs and create a conducive environment for business growth. Complex and cumbersome filing procedures and documentation had been simplified through digitization, including the creation of a digital platform known as the “Shram Suvidha portal”, the reduction in the number of returns and records to be maintained and the promotion of online transactions. The governance reforms, in turn, had incentivized workplaces to adhere to the compliance regime more scrupulously. The Government had already provided detailed statistics regarding the labour inspections carried out under the new regime. The Government’s submissions on the issue of labour law compliance in SEZs deserved particular attention. The primary objective of SEZs was to promote industrial activity which could generate huge investments, as well as large-scale employment. The tripartite review in May 2017 of the effectiveness of labour governance in SEZs had found that the system worked satisfactorily. The limited delegation in SEZs had in no manner created an escape route for employers from fulfilling their obligations towards workers. The self-certification scheme for voluntary compliance together with strict monitoring was a progressive step towards promoting responsibility and ethics among employers. In the understanding of the Indian employers, self-certification had not substituted sovereign labour inspections. Moreover, in their understanding, there had not been any legislative decisions to dilute any labour inspection provisions. Indian employers had always contributed to the tripartite consultation process and appreciated the efforts of the Government to find the optimum solution to all issues which were discussed. The Committee was requested to take note of these facts, and set aside the case.

The Worker member of India noted the Government`s submission and recalled that the world of work had been changing at an unprecedented speed. Conventional employment was already outdated, and the speed of technological evolution limited the life span of an industry and resulted in demographic shifts in production. While the world had seen tremendous economic progress, this had not always resulted in an equitable share of benefits, and had led to widening inequalities, a rise in informality and the loosening of labour market institutions. In addition, the extremely elaborate legislative framework, and its implementation, had created a gap in the realization of workers’ rights. While noting the information provided by the Government on inspection services and staff, and its willingness to engage with the ILO for technical assistance, limitations in the availability of data persisted. Although acknowledging the importance of creating an environment conducive to economic development, the spirit of the Constitution revolved around principles of social justice and non-discrimination, and labour rights were non-negotiable. He noted the information provided on the issue of enforcement and the compliance of SEZs with labour laws, as well as the Government’s intention to organize a tripartite consultation to review the situation in SEZs. He further welcomed the institutionalization of a monitoring mechanism in SEZs to ensure compliance. The Government should continue to hold tripartite consultation, recognizing the long history of trade unions in India and their noteworthy contributions to shaping its labour policies. Partners who contributed to the growth of India demanded their rightful share, and he requested the Committee to take note of the information provided by the Government in a positive manner.

Another Worker member of India expressed growing concern at workplace safety and health violations that had resulted in numerous deaths. The Government had not only refused to follow up on the conclusions of the Committee in 2015, but, had continued to elaborate a computerized system to generate inspection schedules. Through its circular of 25 June 2014, the Central Labour Commissioner had set up a Central Analysis and Intelligence Unit responsible for a computerized inspection system, which did not include OSH inspections and was based on self-certification, the receipt of complaints and a list of defaulters. Labour inspectors were now redesigned as “facilitators” and contrary to the indications made by the Government, trade unions had not been part of any tripartite consultation mechanism; moreover they no longer had a role in labour inspection. The written information provided by the Government had not been made available to the social partners prior to its submission, and they had therefore not been consulted on the information provided. Inspection in the SEZs had been virtually abolished. In many SEZs, labour authorities had been divested of their powers in favour of Development Commissioners under the Ministry of Commerce, rather than the Ministry of Labour. On 30 May 2017, a tripartite meeting had been called to ease ILO pressure. During the meeting, a report had been presented that revealed that Development Commissioners in one year had only undertaken 14 inspections in an SEZ employing 251,000 workers. The statement in the written information provided by the Government that only one worker had been critical of the devolution of powers to Development Commissioners did not reflect the truth. Indeed, the Government had refused to consider documents that had been presented by the Worker member during the meeting. Development Commissioners had been actively refusing the registration of trade unions on the basis of self-invented laws. They also passed on information about initiatives that had been taken to form trade unions, enabling the owners in SEZs to harass workers involved in those initiatives. Contrary to the Government’s statement, the Shops and Establishment Act had not been extended to the IT and ITES sectors, nor had any labour inspections yet been established covering these sectors. As the Committee had unsuccessfully encouraged the Government to comply with the Convention, it was necessary to investigate the real situation on the ground.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran thanked the Government for the information provided on the latest situation concerning the application of the Convention. A number of legislative reforms were ongoing to create an enabling environment for economic growth and job creation. In this respect, it was positive that the Government was working closely with the ILO to ensure that the legislative reforms were consistent with ILO Conventions. Moreover, the Government had provided detailed information and statistics on the labour enforcement system, both at the central and state levels. The Government was encouraged to continue availing itself of ILO technical assistance. He called on the Committee to give due consideration to the information and clarifications provided by the Government.

The Worker member of Malaysia indicated that Indian workers continued to be vulnerable to precarious conditions, including occupational health and safety issues, and remained victims of labour law violations. Effective application of labour laws depended on effective labour inspection, yet, to this day, there were workers that were excluded from labour inspection, for example those working in agriculture, the informal economy, health care services or workers not categorized as teaching staff in teaching institutions, one of the largest sectors of the Indian economy. The Government had manipulated labour inspection in SEZs, such as Noida in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where the Labour Office had closed, and issues have since been managed by Development Commissioners, who had only performed 17 inspections per year in a sector with 352 industries. The Labour Office had reopened for just one year following the comments made by the ILO supervisory bodies, but was again closed in 2016. Given that the IT sector fell within the scope of the Shops and Establishments Act, no labour inspections had been carried out in the sector. Noting that the Government reiterated that no legislative amendments had been carried out to alter legal provisions that might dilute the application of the Convention, the speaker stated that this information was incorrect. Labour inspection was already watered down, and completely unavailable in several sectors. The Government’s planned codification of 44 labour acts would exclude workers employed in establishments with less than 40 workers from the 16 laws related to trade unions, and therefore from labour inspection. Noting that such thresholds were not supported by the Committee of Experts, she called on the Committee of Experts to address expediently this matter by investigating the real situation on the ground, and urged the Government to walk the talk by complying with the Convention.

The Government member of Sri Lanka indicated that since the examination of the application of the Convention by India in the Committee in 2015, the Government had complied with the comments of the Committee of Experts and had provided detailed information on the steps it had taken to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention in law and practice. In this regard, the Government had taken steps to broadly codify 44 central labour acts into four labour codes. However, those initiatives were still at the consultation stage. The Government had followed a proper consultative process in this regard in the form of social dialogue, giving effect to the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). She was of the view that codifying labour Acts into simplified forms and giving full effect to national labour laws and ILO Conventions that India had ratified would help to promote employment generation and also to address effectively the issues of compliance. Moreover, there seemed to be no negative impact on the labour inspection system as a result of legislation that had been adopted. She considered that the Government of India had adequately responded to the substantive issues that had been raised, thus giving effect to the principles enshrined in the Convention.

The Worker member of Australia stated that there were workplaces in India where labour inspection either did not occur or occurred rarely. In order to increase foreign direct investment by multinational corporations, SEZs were consciously structured to promote the non-implementation of labour laws. Domestic labour standards, including the labour inspection requirements of the Factories Act 1948, did apply inside SEZs, where labour inspection was almost entirely absent in practice. Entrusting the implementation of labour laws to the Development Commissioner within each SEZ rather than the Labour Commissioner of the Factories Act, 1948, permitted a regime free of labour inspection. Moreover, state governments had empowered the Development Commissioner to entrust the function of labour law compliance to a delegated person. For example, the Uttar Pradesh Government had empowered the Development Commissioner to call for inspection by any external agency for the safety and health of workers in any SEZ premises. As the primary role of Development Commissioners was to drive production within in the SEZ under its responsibility, the health and safety of workers within them might be considered a conflicting and lower priority. Examples also showed that the labour department was actively dissuaded from conducting inspections in SEZs, such as in the state of Andra Pradesh. The fact that entry into the zones was restricted in practice made the prospects of an unannounced inspection very unlikely. The separate administration of labour law within SEZs effectively meant that they were unregulated by labour inspection, which had dire consequences for workers. In this respect, he referred to a number of examples concerning unsafe and unhealthy working conditions in SEZs, and the consequences for the workers.

Taking into account the continued failure of the Government to provide adequate information on labour inspection in SEZs, and the fact that this matter had been before the Committee on a number of occasions, to the speaker stated that a direct contacts mission was necessary.

The Government member of Turkey welcomed the efforts made and the measures taken by the Government with a view to simplifying practices and reducing the regulatory burden through tripartite consultations on labour inspection. He appreciated that the Government had provided detailed information and statistics on labour inspections under various laws and regulations regarding working life. He encouraged the Government to continue working closely with the ILO to establish an institutionalized inspection system which would facilitate the regular supply of information. Taking into account the information that had been provided, and noting that the Government was ready to accept ILO technical assistance, he was of the view that the Committee should not continue to examine this case.

The Worker member of Brazil expressed concern at the seriousness of the case, which showed how important it was for the international trade union movement to be united and to work together. Furthermore, she deplored the Government’s failure to provide the information needed for the Committee and the supervisory mechanism to function properly. The information supplied by the Government in Document D.9 should be examined with care. The document had not been shared with the unions and had been drafted without prior tripartite consultation, and was therefore questionable. Moreover, the lack of statistics in Document D.9 meant that there was no basis for comparison. In that regard, she encouraged the Government to hold tripartite consultations and to provide the information requested by the Committee of Experts. However, the real problem lay in the fact that there was no effective labour inspection system. The basic function of labour inspection was to avoid accidents at work by preventing, and restricting practices that endangered the life and health of workers. The introduction of a computerized system to select workplaces at random for inspection was very problematic, as it undermined the freedom of action of inspectors. Moreover, it used a flawed and limited database that did not include all workplaces, which meant that, if a factory was not included in the database, it would never be selected for inspection.

She therefore considered that the Government was in violation of the Convention, which should be reflected in the Committee’s conclusions.

The Government member of Bangladesh welcomed the progress made by the Government in complying with the Convention. He appreciated the process of labour law reforms initiated in order to ensure the protection of workers as well as to promote investment and generate quality employment opportunities. Tripartite consultation had been an integral part of the process of legislative reform, in compliance with ILO Conventions. The initiatives taken by the Government did not aim to curtail the authority of the labour inspectorate, but to make the inspection mechanism more transparent and accountable. Inspection mechanisms based on a computerized system would make inspections more objective and targeted. He welcomed the decision taken by the Government to establish an institutionalized system to review the enforcement of labour laws in SEZs. The ILO should continue providing development cooperation and assistance to the Government to complete the ongoing reform process and to further promote labour standards in line with the Conventions, particularly Convention No. 81. Finally, he called on the Committee to take into account the significant efforts made by the Government to address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of the Russian Federation had studied the Committee of Experts’ observation on the application of the Convention in detail and thanked the Government for its submission. Recalling that the Government of India was a founding member of the ILO, he noted the continued commitment of the Government to labour standards and its efforts to encourage tripartite dialogue. He welcomed the Government’s coordination and cooperation with the ILO with regard to legislative reform, and he noted its openness to address the comments of the supervisory bodies. Explanations and clarifications had been provided by the Government, and it was therefore to be expected that regular information would be received in the future and that the Government was committed to working in this way.

The Government representative made observations in relation to the different comments raised during the discussion. With regard to the observations made on the non-availability of statistics, he wished to refer to the reports sent in 2015 and 2016 containing the statistics as required by the Convention. Moreover, the reports that the Government provided to the Committee of Experts had been circulated to all the social partners. That report contained much statistical data, including on the number of labour inspectors in many states, the number of labour inspections undertaken, and the number of labour inspections in SEZs. With reference to the labour law reforms, he explained that Indian labour laws dated back to the 1920s and therefore had to be updated to meet current requirements and developments in the world of work. The social partners were part of the consultations on this legislative review and it was expected that, based on the recommendations made during the review, the labour laws would be strengthened. While many comments had been made in relation to these drafts, violations of the Convention was simply not possible at the current stage, as the labour laws were still under review. He emphasized that labour inspection was a public function in India and that no private inspections had been introduced at the central level or the level of the states. Regarding the verification of the information supplied through the self-certification scheme, it should be clarified that self-certification was different from inspection, and that self-inspection was by no means a form of private inspection or replaced labour inspections in any way. The self-inspection scheme only provided statements by employers on the compliance with provisions of labour laws, and in some cases were accompanied by a security deposit. Workplaces would continue to be subject to the normal labour inspection system and self-certification was only an additional mechanism for compliance. In relation to SEZs, he wished to indicate that in the reports provided by the Government to the Committee of Experts, statistical information had been provided in relation to particular SEZs. He reiterated that there were seven economic zones, of which four zones had not delegated inspection powers. Normal inspections would continue in these four economic zones. Moreover, in the zones in which inspection powers had been delegated to the Development Commissioner, OSH inspections continued to be undertaken by the inspection services of the states. At the moment, only minimal delegation had taken place, and it would be seen in future how such delegation worked. The Government had undertaken the tripartite reviews as suggested by the Committee of Experts and it would continue to ensure that in the future the rights of workers were ensured. Finally, in relation to the issues relating to OSH, it followed from the statistics provided in 2015 and 2016 showed that industrial accidents were decreasing. He concluded that the Government remained committed to the principles of the Convention so as to ensure the protection of workers and compliance with labour standards. Moreover, the Government endeavoured to promote labour welfare through enhanced social security, and to undertake labour reforms through appropriate tripartite consultation. It would continue to work closely with the ILO to ensure conformity with international labour standards.

The Worker members recalled that, on 2 September 2016, over 100 million workers across India had participated in a national strike to protest against the Government’s anti-worker policies. Their demands included the strict enforcement of all basic labour laws. The system as presented by the Government representative seemed perfect. For rights to be exercised, they needed to be protected through an efficient public labour inspection system, and information on inspections had be published regularly and made readily available, as provided for by the Convention. However, the Government was not complying with these obligations, and the labour inspection system was in a state of transition in the wrong direction. It was therefore important for the Committee to issue firm conclusions so that the Government had political guidance, with a preventive approach. The Government could start by implementing the technical assistance provided regarding the draft Small Factories Bill, 2015, the draft Labour Code on wages, and the draft Labour Code on industrial relations.

The Government should also adopt the following measures: ensure effective labour inspections in all SEZs, and provide detailed information on the number of routine and unannounced visits, as well as on the dissuasive fines imposed in the event of violations; promote collaboration between the officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations, in particular with respect to inspection reports; ensure draft legislation in conformity with the Convention; provide information on the measures taken to ensure the discretion of labour inspectors to initiate prompt legal proceedings without previous warning; provide information on the verification by the labour inspectorate of the information provided by employers through self-certification, in particular in relation to health and safety inspections; provide information explaining the division of responsibilities for labour inspection between the state and central governments for each law and regulation in question; provide information explaining, by reference to the relevant statistics, on the extent to which the number of labour inspectors at the disposal of central and state government inspectorates was sufficient to ensure compliance with Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention, and submit the information to the Committee of Experts; and continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in relation to those recommendations.

The Employer members recalled that there were various reasons why a Government could be called before the Committee, even in cases where it had not provided information on the application of the Convention in time, which was the main reason why this case had been selected. The discussion covered a wide range of issues, many of which went beyond the scope of the Convention. It was expected that the discussion of the case would, in future, encourage the Government to provide timely information in response to any requests made by the Committee. They suspected that the same conclusions would be reached by the Committee, but that the conclusions adopted would be stronger than in 2015. They urged the Government to provide detailed and reliable information, as requested, including on the various aspects of labour inspection and the ongoing labour law reform.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of India to:

- ensure that effective labour inspections are conducted in all SEZs, and provide detailed information about the number of routine and unannounced visits as well as the dissuasive fines imposed against infractions;

- promote the collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations, in particular when it comes to the implementation of inspection reports;

- increase the resources at the disposal of the central and state government inspectorates;

- ensure that draft legislation is in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information, including statistical information, to the Committee of Experts on:

- the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors have the discretion to initiate prompt legal proceedings;

- how the information submitted by employers through self-certificates is verified by the labour inspectorate, in particular in relation to health and safety inspections;

- the division of the responsibility of labour inspection between the State and central spheres for each law and regulation in question.

The Committee invited the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in relation to these recommendations.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



The Government provided the following written information.

The Government indicates that India has an elaborate system of labour legislation. The enforcement of the various labour laws has been prescribed under the relevant legislation and is secured through a system of labour inspectorates, both at the state and central levels. The system of inspections and follow-up action that exists in India includes prosecution in the criminal court of law. The mandate of the Ministry of Labour and Employment is to safeguard the interest of the working class while promoting a working environment conducive to inclusive growth and industrial harmony. India is a fast-growing nation with the largest proportion of youth population and thus the creation of decent jobs for all is the top priority for the Government. In this context, government policy is to create an enabling environment for growth and development which will create ample opportunities for decent work for all. The Government is committed to the principles of inclusive and equitable growth. Therefore, a correct balance in the policy environment needs to be achieved so that, while ensuring decent work for all, undue transaction costs and inefficiencies in the implementation of labour laws are eliminated to make the business environment competitive. In this endeavour, the Government is guided by the ethos of tripartite consultations involving government, employers’ and workers’ organizations. In its observation, the Committee of Experts refers to allegations made by the Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), alleging that the Government proposes to exclude a great number of workers from basic labour laws. The Government reiterates that no such amendments to the scope of application of any labour laws have been enacted by the Government to exclude workers from the purview of labour laws. On the contrary, the Government is taking affirmative action, and proposes to expand the coverage of various labour laws. All the proposed amendments to labour laws are being discussed in appropriate tripartite forums, and only after consultations with all stakeholders are amendments carried forward. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Second National Labour Commission. The objective of consolidation of labour laws is to ease the transaction costs of compliance, and not to relax compliance requirements. The Committee of Experts also refers to the proposed Small Factories (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014. The objective of the Small Factories Bill, 2014, is to have a comprehensive law consolidating all the essential provisions of existing labour acts into one piece of legislation so as to achieve effective compliance and enforcement for small factories employing fewer than 40 workers. By making compliance less burdensome and cost effective, it in fact encourages small units to register under the proposed Small Factories Bill. The draft bill, after due tripartite consultation, is presently under examination by the legislative department of the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Government appreciates the technical assistance provided by the ILO in the formulation of labour laws, particularly in the recent drafting of labour legislation (wages, industrial relations, safety and working conditions, and social security and welfare). The Government would be glad to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in the future whenever needed.

Regarding limitations in the inspection system prevalent in the country, it is submitted that the phrase “End of Inspector Raj” in this context does not mean an end of the inspection system, but is intended to mean an end of malpractices in the current inspection system. The Government wishes to make the inspection system efficient and transparent so that its effectiveness and consequently the compliance of labour laws can be improved. The Government is giving full effect to the provision of the Convention. The Government reiterates its commitment to the obligations contained in the Convention that workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary. There is no intent either to dilute this principle in theory or practice, or to relax the enforcement of the rule of law. Factories in all states are governed by the Factories Act and there is a similar set-up in all states under a chief inspector of factories. The statistics show that there has not been any drastic decline in the past few years, nor have there been serious imbalances in the number of inspections in the states. For instance, in 2014–15 under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act) 1970, a total of 2,729 inspections were carried out in the central sphere up to December 2014, and these inspections resulted in 1,634 prosecutions and 1,510 convictions. Similarly, 4,852 inspections were carried out under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which led to the detection of 179,958 irregularities in the payment of minimum wages and, consequently, 1,790 prosecutions were launched which resulted in 1,041 convictions.

In relation to labour inspection in special economic zones (SEZs), the Government indicates that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, does not preclude the applicability of labour laws in SEZs. Rather, section 49(1) of the SEZs Act, which deals with the power to modify different acts specifically states that such modifications should not apply to the matters relating to trade unions, industrial and labour disputes, welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation, invalidity and old-age pensions and maternity benefits applicable in any SEZs. The Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, lay down the procedure for the establishment of SEZs. These, among others, include the delegation of powers to the Development Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and other related acts in relation to the unit and the workmen employed in the SEZs, and also declare SEZs to be public utility services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government has not diluted the provisions of any labour laws and their enforcement for SEZs. Only in certain cases has the Development Commissioner of the SEZ (who is a senior government employee) been delegated the powers of a labour enforcement officer for ease of implementing and expediting enforcement activities. This does not in any way dispense with requisite labour inspection, as provided for under different acts. With regard to information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services (ITES) sectors, the central acts, such as the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, are applicable to these sectors. These establishments are inspected by the regular state government labour enforcement machinery like any other establishment. The working conditions in IT and ITES sectors are regulated by the provisions of the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act of respective state governments and ensured through inspection and through returns submitted by employers. The Committee of Experts has sought information on any amendments proposed to the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Act, 1988. This Act provides for the exemption of employers in relation to establishments employing a small number of persons from furnishing returns and maintaining registers under certain labour laws. The Government indicates, in this regard, that a series of tripartite consultations were undertaken on 23 January 2006, 22 June 2006, 1 March 2007, 15 March 2007 and 7 June 2007 prior to the introduction of the bill to amend this legislation, in 2011, which was subsequently passed by the Parliament on 28 November 2014. The amendment was notified on 10 December 2014.

With regard to the observation by the Committee of Experts concerning the self-certification system introduced in 2008 in the State of Haryana, the Government indicates that self-certification is fundamentally a support system to help employers ensure compliance with labour laws on their own and then to support the labour inspector at the time of inspection. This scheme does not entail any relaxation of statutory inspections by labour inspectors. The Government emphasizes that this self-certification is an additional requirement to the system of statutory labour inspections and is in no way a substitute to the main work of labour inspection. The Committee of Experts has sought information on the pay scales and code of conduct of labour inspectors. In India, the appointments of inspectors are notified in the Gazette and inspectors are deemed to be public servants, governed by relevant service conditions and conduct rules, and they take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India. All inspectors under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, in major ports are appointed by a notification in the Official Gazette and as such their pay scales are the same as those applicable to other public officers such as tax inspectors. The pay scale of the inspector staff in all these organizations is 9,300 Indian rupees (INR) to INR34,800 + INR4,600 (GP) plus dearness allowance and other allowances as may be applicable. With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding free access of labour inspectors to a workplace and the recommendation of the Committee of Experts to amend the Factories Act, 1948, and the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, so that the rights of inspectors to enter workplaces freely is guarantee in law, the Government indicates that section 9 of the Factories Act, 1948, and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, already guarantee powers to inspectors to enter freely in workplaces and dockyards, etc. Thus amendment to the Factories Act, 1948, and the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, do not seem necessary. The Committee of Experts has further suggested removing all restrictions in practice, where they exist, with regard to the principle of the free initiative of labour inspectors to enter any workplace liable for inspection. The existing labour laws guarantee this power to inspectors already. In practice, too, the right and power of the labour inspection authority has not been curtailed by the Government. As regards the inspection system in state governments, the Central Government does, from time to time, advise state governments to enforce labour laws effectively and to have effective enforcement mechanisms. The Government has recently launched a major good governance initiative to improve labour enforcement mechanism in terms of transparency, accountability and ease of compliance with the ultimate aim of promoting industrial peace and harmony. The Government reiterates that the rights of the inspection authority have not been curtailed. The observation of the Committee of Experts also concerns the inadequacy of penalties under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, and the delay in making the necessary amendments to these Acts to enhance penalties. The Government indicates that under the current provisions of these Acts, penalties consist of a fine or imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature of the violation. The Government is in the process of making certain amendments to the Factories Act, 1948, which, among others, include amendments with respect to provisions concerning penalties. Based on the inputs received from the stakeholders, the proposed amendments are under re-examination in the Ministry. The bill could not yet be passed due to a lack of consensus among various stakeholders on the proposed amendments. The Government is committed to the cause of labour in the developmental process and ensuring efficiency and transparency in the world of work. It reiterates its commitments towards international labour standards, as prescribed by the ILO, and particularly the Convention. It remains open to any technical assistance from the ILO as needed.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative said that the enforcement of the various labour laws was secured through a system of labour inspectorates, at both the state level and the central level, and included prosecution in the criminal courts. As a founding member of the ILO, India deeply respected the fundamental rights of all its citizens, as set out in the Constitution. The mandate of the Ministry of Labour and Employment was to safeguard the interests of the working class, while promoting a conducive working environment for inclusive growth and industrial harmony. The review and updating of labour laws was a continuous process and the Government was guided by tripartite consultations. In its report to the Committee of Experts, his Government would provide detailed statistics on the enforcement of labour laws from 2011 to 2014, as requested. He nevertheless emphasized that a decline in the number of inspections did not indicate a lack of enforcement of labour laws. During the periods 2012 to 2013 and 2013 to 2014, the number of convictions under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act had increased from 2,913 to 3,259, and the number of convictions under the Minimum Wages Act had increased from 4,954 to 5,074. Those statistics demonstrated that the Government was placing emphasis on quality and effectiveness of inspections. Concerning labour inspection in SEZs, the Government would provide detailed statistics regarding inspection activities, as requested by the Committee of Experts. The Government had recently launched a major good governance initiative to improve labour enforcement mechanisms in terms of transparency and accountability and, under a computerized inspection system, the selection of establishments for inspection would be based on transparent and intelligent criteria to avoid malpractices. That system was being designed to improve compliance with labour laws, and the rights of the inspection authority had not been curtailed. In conclusion, he expressed the commitment of his Government to the cause of labour in the developmental process and its deep respect for ILO labour standards, and he expressed appreciation for the ILO’s technical support.

The Worker members welcomed the opportunity to discuss this case as workers’ rights were poorly enforced in India in practice, in both the formal and the vast informal economy. Even in the formal economy, inspection in some areas was essentially non-existent. The Worker members were of the view that labour inspectors were often unable or unwilling to monitor compliance with national labour laws. In many cases, labour inspection bodies continued to be extremely understaffed. Labour inspectors were also prevented from entering factories, and collusion with employers was frequent. Labour inspection was thus largely incapable of ensuring respect for workers’ rights. The new laws proposed by the Government did not resolve those issues and instead threatened to worsen the situation by weakening labour inspection. As of 2014, the Government had introduced legislative bills which had implications not only for the content of substantive rights, but also far-reaching consequences for labour inspection. The draft Wages Bill was just one example. The Worker members believed that section 47 of the Wages Bill would profoundly change the system of labour inspection in a manner that was fundamentally inconsistent with the Convention. The primary concern with the proposal was that it depended entirely on self-inspection. The system would allocate work places for inspection randomly and the employer would be notified in advance of the inspection. Inspection systems based entirely on self-assessment and complaints were ineffective, as enterprises could provide false information and workers were unlikely to complain because of fear of reprisals. Instead, risk-based inspections, as part of a coordinated strategy, were essential to ensure that cases of non-compliance were detected where self-certification and complaints-based inspections were inadequate. Targeted inspections should therefore be given priority over complaints-based inspections. Furthermore, unannounced visits were an essential element of labour inspection, as companies that were notified of inspections could make efforts to appear to comply only on the day of the inspection. After the inspection ended, such firms would return to their poor or illegal practices. While supporting efforts to address corruption, this could be done by making inspectors subject to a supervisory body. Such a body could direct the work of inspectors so that inspections were targeted, rather than arbitrary, and thereby reduce the potential for improper conduct. In addition, section 47(4)(ii) of the Bill determined the powers of inspectors, with significant new limitations on inspection powers compared with existing Indian labour law. Finally, section 49(3) of the Bill envisaged that penalties would only be imposed after an inspector had issued a written order and given the employer additional time to comply. While that might be appropriate in some circumstances, penalties were required in all cases. If the new law was adopted, all incentives would be removed for employers to comply with the law. Employers would simply be able to violate the law and wait until a written order was issued, and then comply. Inspectors should have the power to issue a fine immediately, particularly in cases where violations were intentional or repeated, or where violations were serious or affected a large number of workers. The decision to rename inspectors as facilitators also led to the belief that enforcement was not part of the objectives of labour inspection.

In 2008, the SEZs Act had established a flexible legal framework as a means of attracting foreign direct investment. In India, SEZs were known for anti-union discrimination, with unions being strongly discouraged and thus rare. Moreover, workers were frequently not paid minimum wages, worked very long hours in order to meet stringent and unrealistic production targets, and were subjected to dismissal without justification or compensation. Health and safety in SEZs was frequently poor, which was in part due to the outsourcing of labour inspection. The SEZs Act provided that its provisions could not be invoked to amend labour legislation. However, although labour law could not be modified, state governments had in fact made substantial modifications through notifications and other administrative measures. For example, the Government of Punjab had delegated the powers of the Labour Commissioner, who was responsible for the enforcement of labour laws outside SEZs, to the Development Commissioner. It had also decided that a self-certification system would be applied in respect of labour laws. In addition, all units set up in SEZs were declared “Public Utility Services” under the Industrial Dispute Act, which made the exercise of the right to strike nearly impossible. Normally, Indian labour legislation vested the Labour Commissioner with the authority to enforce labour laws. In SEZs, this authority was vested with the Development Commissioner, whose central function, unlike that of the Labour Commissioner, was to ensure that SEZs were able to attract investment and generate earnings. In addition, for inspections relating to health and safety, units in SEZs could obtain inspection reports from accredited agencies, which meant that this important function was outsourced to private actors. The Worker members feared this would increase the likelihood of industrial disasters. The Worker members were of the view that the current legal reforms posed significant concerns in relation to compliance with the Convention and risked undermining compliance with national labour laws. Furthermore, over a decade of experience of SEZs provided ample evidence that the fact that the legal framework allowed the zone authorities rather than the Labour Commissioner, to enforce the law meant that violations of labour legislation in SEZs had predictably become rife, with little possibility of remedying such violations. Further reliance on self-certification schemes would only further weaken the enforcement powers of the Government and leave workers without effective recourse. The Worker members urged the Government, in consultation with the ILO and the social partners, to review the impact of these various schemes and to make the necessary reforms in law and practice to ensure that workplaces were inspected effectively in accordance with the Convention.

The Employer members indicated that this case was fundamentally one of a Government not providing the Committee of Experts with the necessary statistics and information, as required under the Convention. Referring to the 2009 general observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the Convention, which stated that “However advanced it may be, a country’s labour legislation is liable to remain a dead letter if there is no system of labour inspection to enforce it, not only in law, but also in practice”, the Employer members encouraged all governments, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, to maintain and keep up to date a central database of statistics showing the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed in them. The Employer members noted with some disappointment that some of the information requested by the Committee of Experts had been first requested in 2004 and 2009. They appreciated the challenges faced by the Government in respect of labour inspection in view of its federal system and elaborate system of labour legislation. It had a range of labour inspectorates at both the central and state levels. According to a presentation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner for India in 2011, India had one of the highest numbers of labour laws in the world. At the central level, the Chief Labour Commissioner was responsible for enforcing labour legislation regarding working conditions to the extent that central government was the appropriate government. Based on the most recent information provided by the Government in 2014, and referred to by the Committee of Experts, the division of responsibility between central government and state government for labour inspection under various enactments in India was far from clear. The Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that in view of the limited information provided, there had been a reduction at the central level in the number of inspections under the legislation in question, the number of irregularities identified and the number of convictions. However, they did not agree that it could automatically be inferred from such limited information that there was a breach of Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. Detailed information and analysis of that information was required before such an observation could be made. With regard to the information concerning the state level, where much inspection took place, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that it was not possible to properly assess the functioning of labour inspection at all, as the information provided was extremely limited.

The Employer members welcomed the detailed information provided by the Government, which provided a basis for moving forward with the introduction of a system of inspection that was in compliance with the Convention, in particular with Article 10 (number of inspectors) and Article 16 (frequency of inspection). They urged the Government to use the outcome of the discussion to demonstrate its commitment to work in close cooperation with the ILO in compliance with its Article 22 reporting obligations. They supported and commended the Government of India in its stated aim of removing malpractice from its system of labour administration and inspection. This was the malpractice of burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy. Removal of such bureaucracy was necessary to create an enabling environment for both sustainable business and internal and external investment. It was well known how far and how quickly the Indian economy had developed, which was now the eighth largest economy in the world. India not only attracted high levels of investment from overseas, but was also a major investor in the global economy. At the same time, the challenges facing the Indian economy and society were huge. It had the second largest population in the world and over 50 per cent of its population were under the age of 25. To continue to develop its economy to meet such demands, the Government was seeking to improve the ease of doing business in India, including the ease of investment. Despite the breathtaking advances of the Indian economy, India traditionally ranked low on recognized standards on the ease of doing business. The Employer members noted the Government’s observation that “ending Inspector Raj”, meant removing malpractice to create such an environment. Labour inspectors had been identified by business as being sometimes overbearing and obsessed with form filling and bureaucracy. This was a reputation that undermined the ability of inspectors to do their job. The Employer members however cautioned against any reform of labour administration and inspection which might undermine the ability of the Government to comply with its obligations under ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 81. They urged the Government to combine reform of labour administration with investment in its regulatory structures and, in that regard, to draw upon the country’s wealth of expertise in its renowned IT sector. They also expressed a further note of caution. One of the responsibilities of state labour inspectors was the enforcement of the Child Protection (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, which prohibited employment under the age of 14 in hazardous occupations. This Act formed one of the cornerstones of the present legal regime on child labour in India. The Employer members were therefore very concerned that no information had been made available to the Committee of Experts on the number of inspections and prosecutions under this extremely important Act at the state level. To be clear, the Employer members were not saying that state labour inspectors were not seeking to enforce the Act, as they were not aware of any complaint from the Worker members in this regard. They urged the Government to give priority to the compilation of statistics on child labour inspections. Finally, they urged the Government to have particular regard to child labour issues in building the capacity of the labour inspection system and to fulfilling its reporting obligations under the Convention.

The Worker member of India said that the Government had enacted the SEZs Act in 2005 and had then introduced the policy on National Manufacturing Investment Zones under which areas were specified where labour laws would not be implemented or enforced. In those areas, one development commissioner would be specially empowered to deal with labour problems at his discretion, while there would not be inspectorates, conciliation proceedings, tribunals or labour courts. This in turn had raised the fear that the role of trade unions would cease, and in fact, only a few unions had been registered in these areas and the exploitation of workers had increased. However, more and more anti-union practices by both the Government and employers had been stopped by trade unions. Such situations had led to the forming of the Joint Front of Central Trade Union Organizations comprising all the central trade unions, a historical development in the history of the Indian labour movement. The Government had intended to amend unilaterally almost all the important labour laws relating to working conditions, wages, industrial relations and social security, without tripartite consultation. The withdrawal of labour inspection was proposed, in violation of Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention and self-certification had been proposed, in violation of Articles 6, 12(1) and 18 of the Convention. These proposals had given rise to strong protests by the Joint Front of Central Trade Union Organizations throughout the country. The Government claimed that it had taken initiatives to amend the labour legislation in order to allow for rapid industrialization, employment generation and the attraction of foreign direct investment. All such acts were contrary to the 2002 recommendations made by the 2nd National Commission on Labour, which was a tripartite body. Following strong protests by trade unions, the Government had started discussions in tripartite forums and had given assurances that it would not be taking any unilateral action. He called on the Government to refrain from amending any laws that would result in the violation of Convention No. 81 or other Conventions, to strongly punish employers for any violation of labour laws and any exploitation of workers, and to ensure that job security, wage security and social security were guaranteed.

The Employer member of India indicated that Indian enterprises were subject to multiple labour laws, cumbersome and time-consuming compliance procedures and high-handedness by the inspectorate. There were ongoing efforts to reduce avoidable administrative burdens such as the amendment of the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Act, 1988, was one such example. Similarly, in order to check high-handedness by inspectors, some of the state governments only allowed visits with the prior permission of senior officials. He considered that the requirements of Convention No. 81 had not been compromised or diluted in any way. The Government had started to take several measures to boost the industrial sector in order to improve the country’s competitiveness and employment growth. That followed a number of measures, such as amending the Apprentices Act, 1988, the Factories Act, 1948, and the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Act, 1988, the drafting of the Small Factories (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services) Bill, 2014, and the launching of the Shram Suvidha Portal, which enabled inspectors to track compliance by units in their area. He indicated that the hallmark of these measures was to facilitate industrial activity and to protect workers. He was of the view that, while the excessive power enjoyed by inspectors might have increased the chances of corruption, as mentioned in the All India Manufacturers’ Organisation (AIMO) communication, their independence and integrity, as envisaged under Article 6 of the Convention, could not be guaranteed by higher pay scales. It was true that the adequacy of remuneration and the equivalence of pay scales with those in compatible categories of other public services was important. Referring to Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention, which conferred unfettered powers to enter the workplace, he recalled that absolute power corrupted absolutely. Moreover, the requirements of compliance could be fully met if visits were regulated by senior officials in the ministry. The advancement of technology had brought a new dimension to the system of reporting compliance and of governance issues; physical record-keeping and inspections had given way to the e-filing of returns and e-governance. Online compliance reports provided sufficient material as a basis for the Government’s opinion about inspections, which would need to be carried out on a selective basis. As had been explained by the Government representative, he reiterated that there were no efforts to exclude workers from the coverage of any statute, but only to do away with excessive bureaucratic exercise by having recourse to technology. In light of these submissions, he hoped that the Committee would take a lenient view of the case.

The Government member of Japan believed that everyone could agree that labour inspection was essential for labour law compliance at the workplace and for worker protection. He noted the information provided by the Government that the scope of application of labour legislation had not changed and that the right and power of inspectors to enter workplaces freely was guaranteed in both law and practice. He encouraged the Government to make efforts, based on tripartite consultations and with ILO technical assistance, to improve labour law compliance at the workplace and to protect workers, while promoting economic growth and the creation of decent jobs.

The Worker member of Indonesia indicated that respect for and the implementation of labour rights were fundamental in creating decent working conditions. Due to the multiplicity of labour laws, the existence of a poorly integrated inspection system, the absence of adequate transport and communications facilities, and the geographical spread of establishments, inspection coverage was hugely difficult. Based on Indian Labour Bureau data on the 2012 Annual Review of the implementation of the Minimum Wage Act, 1948, inspectors had been expected in 2012 to cover an estimated 2,428 establishments each. He observed that labour inspection was thus largely incapable of ensuring workers’ rights. With regard to regulation, he indicated that a self-certification system had been introduced in a few states (such as Punjab, Gujarat and Maharashtra), making inspection mandatory every five years under a clutch of labour laws, provided that the employer had self-declared compliance with those labour laws. Self-certification had been implemented in certain sectors, such as the SEZs, IT and ITES, and National Manufacturing and Investment Zones (NMIZs). Moreover, in the case of SEZs, government responsibility had been shifted from the Labour Department (specialized) to the Development Commissioner (non-specialized). In some states, inspections were only carried in selectively covered sectors. In Uttar Pradesh, inspections could not be carried out without prior permission from a labour commissioner or a district magistrate. In some states, third-party accredited inspections were carried out. He denounced the Government’s intent to unilaterally amend almost all of the important labour laws relating to service conditions, wages, safety, industrial relations and social security. The withdrawal of labour inspection had been proposed and the introduction of self-certification, both of which were in violation of the Convention. No one would deny the importance of labour inspection in protecting workers’ fundamental rights and enabling the enforcement of labour legislation. India therefore needed to comply with the Convention.

The Government member of Fiji noted the allegations of the CITU that the Government was in violation of its obligations under the Convention when it announced in September 2014 the introduction of a computerized system for the identification of companies that would be inspected. However, he emphasized that such a decision had been taken with the aim of improving transparency and accountability in the labour inspection system. Despite the complexity of the Indian labour law system, it appeared that the Government was committed to the enforcement of such laws, including through criminal prosecution. He emphasized that the Government had also expressed its willingness to receive ILO technical assistance in order to ensure the compliance of its legislation with ILO Conventions. He called upon the Committee to give time and space to the Government to undertake reforms of its labour inspection system and encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of France indicated that, according to a 2014 report on global investments, published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, India was the third most attractive country for foreign direct investment. However, it was far from being a paradise for workers’ rights. Governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, SEZs were really rights-free zones, where labour inspection held no sway. The law defined production units within SEZs as “Public Utility Services”, meaning strikes were illegal. The management of SEZs had been transferred from the Ministry of Labour to the Development Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that attracted sufficient investment and generated profits. She said that labour inspection was non-existent in SEZs, and that no legal action could be taken against an employer in the event of occupational injury or illness. Safety and health laws did not apply to SEZs. The system of self-certification, which over-simplified administrative procedures, prevented any supervision by the labour authorities. The situation was not without consequences for working conditions and unionization in SEZs. According to a report published jointly by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and the India Committee of the Netherlands entitled Flawed Fabrics, occupational illnesses were increasing, wages were very low and the working week was 50 to 70 hours. The problem included psychological and sexual harassment, as well as dismissals without justification or compensation. Maternity protection was non-existent in SEZs, workplaces were unhealthy and workers were sometimes beaten. These conditions amounted in practice to modern slavery. Workers who were ill were fired without compunction and replaced by healthy workers. Workers had no written contract and subcontracting practices were widespread. In order to remain competitive on the global market, labour costs were being cut and the pressure to obtain orders from multinational enterprises in global supply chains was being transferred to workers, who were assigned daily production targets that were ever more demanding. Despite the proclamation in the ILO Constitution that labour was not a commodity, the fact that it was impossible to supervise working conditions in Indian SEZs seemed to suggest that that was exactly the premise on which global trade operated via supply chains.

The Government member of China expressed appreciation for the information provided by the Government and its goodwill and endeavour to create a favourable economic environment to generate decent employment. He observed that the amendments to the labour laws had been ongoing and, in this framework, encouraged the ILO to provide technical assistance to the Government. He believed that the introduction of the computerized system would help secure the independence and integrity of labour inspectors.

The Worker member of the Netherlands said that more labour inspection was needed, as the majority of workers in India were not covered by adequate labour inspection. The Government was facing many challenges, such as child labour, bonded labour, the lack of a minimum wage, as well as serious occupational safety and health risks in many sectors. However, the measures proposed by the Government undermined the capacity of labour inspectors to secure the enforcement of legal provisions relating to all of these challenges. The self-certification system differentiated between SMEs with fewer than 40 employees and larger companies. A system of self-certification without effective verification of the data as proposed for small enterprises, was not likely to provide reliable information. The majority of SMEs in India operated in the informal economy. For every registered small company, 17 were unregistered and would not therefore complete the self-certification form. Companies with fewer than 40 employees were not therefore covered by labour inspection. She emphasized that fraudulent practices had occurred when visits were announced. For example, she referred to testimonies of working children having to stay in the backroom when inspections had been announced and of workers being provided with safety gear during the inspection day only. Unannounced visits were necessary, also because in a complaints-based system of announced visits, the inspectorate could not guarantee the privacy of the complainant. Moreover, the Government proposed to replace inspectors by facilitators or advisers, which might undermine their authentic inspection function and the independent competence of inspectors to impose fines. In conclusion, she drew the Committee’s attention to the situation of workers in rural areas and in the informal economy who lacked the protection of the labour inspectorate. She called for labour inspection to be extended to those workers, including home-based workers and domestic workers.

The Government member of the Russian Federation indicated that he had carefully considered the report of the Committee of Experts and expressed appreciation for the information provided by the Government representative of India. He added that the labour inspection system in India, as it was now, could comply with the requirements of the Convention. The amendments to the labour legislation, which had been considered by the Committee of Experts, had gone through tripartite discussions with a view to improving and ensuring compliance with national legislation and increasing the efficiency and transparency of the labour inspection system. He welcomed the information provided by the Government that laws also applied to SEZs. He expressed his satisfaction with regard to the cooperation of the Government with the ILO and trusted that this cooperation would continue.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela welcomed the Government’s stated commitment to comply with Convention. He noted with satisfaction the information presented concerning strengthening the labour inspection system at the state and central levels. He observed that the legislative reforms proposed sought to create an environment that was conducive to economic progress and which promoted opportunities for decent work. Bearing in mind the Government’s positive stance and the efforts it had made, he considered that the Committee should take account of the positive aspects to be understood from the explanations and arguments the Government had presented. He trusted that the Committee would be objective and balanced in its conclusions, which would enable the Government to consider and evaluate them in relation to its compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Bangladesh thanked the Government representative for the information provided on the application of the Convention and noted the progress made in developing its labour inspection system and the related legal framework for its implementation. He invited the Government to continue its efforts to promote labour rights through an effective labour inspection system and called on the ILO to provide the necessary technical assistance in this regard.

The Government member of Myanmar noted with satisfaction the detailed information and statistics provided by the Government representative on the labour inspection system, at both the central and provincial levels. She also welcomed the governance initiatives aimed at bringing transparency and accountability to the labour inspection system, without undermining the authority and responsibilities of the labour inspectorate. It was every government’s duty to safeguard the interests of workers while promoting a conducive working environment for inclusive and equitable growth. Noting the social security schemes adopted, she indicated that the legislative reforms proposed by the Government sought to create an enabling environment for economic progress and aimed to promote opportunities for decent jobs for its expanding labour force. The Government should be encouraged to continue its technical collaboration with the ILO. In conclusion, she invited the Committee to consider the information provided by the Government with regard to the observation of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran indicated that the detailed information and statistics provided by the Government showed that considerable achievements had been made with regard to the labour inspection system. The Government had proposed a series of legislative reforms with the aim of creating an enabling environment for economic growth and job creation. He welcomed the fact that the Government had been working closely with the ILO to ensure that the legislative reforms were consistent with ILO Conventions. He endorsed the measures taken by the Government to improve its legislation, and encouraged the Government to continue on that path. In conclusion, he hoped that the information and clarifications provided by the Government would be taken into account by the Committee.

The Government member of Singapore welcomed the steps that India had proposed to demonstrate its commitment to the Convention. He noted that the proposed consolidation of labour laws did not exclude any workers from the purview of the laws and that the proposed amendments had been discussed with the tripartite stakeholders. The good governance initiative launched by the Government would improve labour enforcement in terms of transparency, accountability and ease of compliance. Moreover, the Government was committed to strengthening its labour framework through the recent drafting of its Labour Code in the areas of wages, industrial relations, safety and working conditions, social security and welfare with the technical assistance of the ILO. He encouraged the Government to continue to its efforts to ensure adequate enforcement, including inspection, and called upon the Government to continue to seek further ILO assistance in fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of Ghana, while referring to the Government’s statement that it had not enacted any law to exclude certain workers from the purview of labour inspection, considered it to be a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to provide comprehensive social protection to all workers. He urged the Government to continue working in collaboration with the ILO and to adopt amendments to its labour legislation in order to meet the current development challenges. The Government should continue to engage in discussions with stakeholders to find solutions to the grey areas of the Acts of 1948 and 1986, as identified by the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Kuwait, also speaking on behalf of the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council, valued the efforts made by the Government and the social partners to implement the Convention and welcomed the measures already adopted. The Convention constituted the framework within which countries adopted new labour inspection systems that were essential for the correct implementation of international labour standards. He invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to continue its efforts to implement the Convention.

The Government representative reiterated the Government’s commitment to complying with the Convention. Its intention to engage in ILO technical assistance was essentially to ensure that the legislative process remained consistent with the Convention. India was also participating in an ILO study on enhancing labour administration performance specifically focussing on the capacity of labour administration to promote compliance with labour laws. Many of the observations made during the discussion were more apprehensions than actual facts. Turning to the proposed bills, which were still under consultation, he emphasized that inputs and advice from various stakeholders had been considered at the time of analysing the bills. He gave assurances that the obligations arising out of the Convention would be fully taken into consideration when finalizing the bills. In relation to labour inspection in SEZs, he said that SEZs were not void of labour inspection. For example, during the labour inspection conducted in the SEZs of Noida, which consisted of 27 units, the labour inspectors had detected 15 violations of labour issues and penalties had been imposed on ten units in SEZs. Referring to the allegation of the conflict of interest concerning the duties of the Development Commissioner in SEZs and his inspectorates, he clarified that they were government officials whose duty was not only to ensure investment in SEZs, but also to maintain industrial relations and to ensure compliance with labour laws.

Another Government representative emphasized that India was a country characterized by a high population, multi-plurality, multi-lingualism and multi-ethnicity. These characteristics, along with its federal government structure, made governance difficult and complex. However, several initiatives in the area of labour had taken place since the new Government took office. Labour inspections were now carried out in a free, fair and transparent manner. All information regarding the administration of labour legislation was made available to the public, which would enable any citizen to question the decisions of the Government, as well as issues related to the inspections conducted. He emphasized that inspection reports were placed on the Government’s public website. However, labour inspectorates were understaffed. The Government was therefore making use of technology, and more work was therefore carried out through technology than the mere presence of inspectors. Turning to corruption issues, he indicated that inspectors were accountable for their acts and that the conduct of labour inspection according to principles of transparency was not tantamount to a violation of the independence of inspectors. He added that the Cabinet had recently approved a ban on child labour. No child under the age of 14 could be employed, which constituted a big step forward for the country. Finally, with regard to challenges in the informal sector, he indicated that the Government was in the process of issuing a smart card for each worker in the informal economy, which would give them access to basic life, health and pension insurance. In conclusion, he hoped that with ILO technical assistance the Government would be able to achieve progress and provide safe and secure working conditions for each worker in the country.

The Worker members indicated that this was an important case, as many workers were affected by the decisions of the Government on the functioning of the labour inspection system. It was clear that self-certification schemes were not effective and constituted a flagrant violation of the Convention. The elimination of the so-called “Inspector Raj” had resulted in the suppression of many labour inspectors. Turning to SEZs, they observed that labour inspection functions in SEZs were delegated to zone authorities which did not have an interest in enforcing labour laws. SEZs had therefore become union free zones where fundamental rights and labour standards were violated and impunity reigned. They added that in some SEZs health and safety inspections had been privatized, which gave rise to concern about the adequacy of inspections and the risk of industrial catastrophes. While recognizing the Government’s efforts to attract foreign direct investment, it could not be tolerated that the method adopted was based on a promise not to enforce labour laws effectively, which had already been the strategy of previous governments. The message was therefore sent out to workers that their fundamental rights were not worth protecting. This was something of an invitation to other governments to take inspiration from this approach. In conclusion, the Government should be urged to ensure that the amendments made to the labour laws were in full compliance with the Convention and were developed in consultation with the social partners. To this effect, it should avail itself of ILO technical assistance. The Government should provide a comprehensive report to the 2015 session of the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members observed that this discussion demonstrated the fundamental need for social dialogue covering the concerns addressed by the Committee of Experts with regard to the impact of the self-certification scheme; the guarantee that workplaces could be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary to ensure effective application of the legislation, including the protection and promotion of the principle of the free initiative of labour inspectors to enter any workplace liable to inspection; labour inspections in SEZs and the impact of dispensations conceded by the development commissioner on labour inspection; and the needs of the informal sector. To this effect, the Government should avail itself of ILO technical assistance for the development of a system of labour inspection as set forth in the Convention, taking into consideration the federal government structure of the country. In this regard, special attention should be paid to the implementation of Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention concerning the adequacy of the number of inspectors and the frequency of inspections. The Government should be requested to provide to the 2015 session of the Committee of Experts information on relevant statistics, including SEZs, in order to show whether the number of inspectors at the disposal of the central and state government inspectorates was sufficient to ensure compliance with the Convention. It should also provide information on the current proposals for amendments to labour legislation and its regulations, as well as information on all laws and regulations, including those relating to health and safety, that required inspection of workplaces covered by the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the oral and written information provided by the Government representative on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and the discussion that ensued. They related to: the need for a sufficient number of labour inspectors and adequate labour inspections at the central and state levels including in the formal and informal economy; the review and consolidation of a number of labour laws; the introduction of a “self-inspection scheme”; the need to ensure unrestricted access of labour inspectors to workplaces without prior authorization; the free initiative of labour inspectors to conduct labour inspections without previous notice considering the generation of computerized lists identifying the companies to be inspected; the effective application of labour laws in SEZs and the IT and ITES sectors; the effective enforcement of sufficiently dissuasive penalties; and the availability of statistics as required under the Convention to enable an assessment of the functioning of the labour inspection system.

The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representative that there were no proposed legislative amendments to exclude a large number of workers from the protection of basic labour laws; that the inspection system did not provide for limitations in terms of the number and thoroughness of inspections and the enforcement of the legal provisions, but that this system was designed to increase accountability and reduce arbitrariness. Self-certification by employers was an additional means to ensure compliance, but was not a substitute for labour inspections. The Government also indicated that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, did not preclude the application of labour laws in SEZs and that the Development Commissioner responsible for their enforcement had the necessary independence despite his additional role of attracting foreign investment. Moreover, the IT and ITES sectors were subject to labour inspections in the same way as other sectors. The Committee also noted the Government’s indications that the ILO technical assistance had been highly appreciated in the framework of the current legislative reforms and that it was willing to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee requested that the Government:

• Provide, in relation to the Convention, the following information before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in 2015:
  • 1. Detailed statistical information covering at the central and state levels all the matters set out in Article 21 (including the number of staff of the respective labour inspectorates) with a view to demonstrating compliance with Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention and specifying:
    • (a) as far as possible the proportion of routine to unannounced visits; and
    • (b) information in relation to the proportion of routine and unannounced visits in all SEZs.
  • 2. An explanation as to the arrangements for verification of information supplied by employers making use of self-certification schemes.
  • 3. Information explaining the division of the responsibility of labour inspection between the state and central spheres for each law and regulation in question.
  • 4. Information explaining, by reference to the relevant statistics, the extent to which the number of labour inspectors at the disposal of central and state government inspectorates are sufficient to ensure compliance with Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention.
  • 5. Detailed information on compliance with Article 12 of the Convention with regard to access to workplaces, to records, to witnesses and other evidence, as well as the means available to compel access to such. Provide statistics on the denial of such access, steps taken to compel such access, and the results of such efforts. This includes SEZs, the information for which should be separated from general information.
  • 6. Detailed information on health and safety inspections, undertaken by certified private agencies, including the number of inspections, the number of violations reported by such agencies, and compliance and enforcement measures taken.
• Review, with social partners, the extent to which delegation of inspection authority from the labour commissioner to the development commissioner in SEZs has affected the quantity and quality of labour inspections.
• In consultation with the social partners, ensure that the amendments to the labour laws undertaken at the central or state level comply with the provisions of the Convention, making full use of ILO technical assistance. Additionally, provide detailed information explaining all current proposals to labour laws and regulations that impact upon the system of labour inspection at the central and state level.

The Government representative said that the Government had taken note of the Committee’s conclusions. The Government would provide all the requested information and statistics for the Committee of Expert’s next session. He reiterated the Government’s commitment to all ILO Conventions, particularly Convention No. 81, to continue to strive to achieve decent work conditions for all workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

With reference to its observation, the Committee also wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 5(a) of the Convention. Cooperation between the inspection services and other government services. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the functions of area officers, i.e. senior officers of the Ministry of Labour and Employment who visit major states once in each quarter and other states once every six months in order to discuss with the state government officials the implementation of labour laws, including in the Special Economic Zones (SEZs), for which the state government is the appropriate government, and to discuss with the Ministry’s officials posted in that state the implementation of labour laws for which Central Government is the appropriate Government. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether area officers collaborate with labour inspectors and the manner in which they do so and to indicate the results and impact of their activities.

 Article 5(b). Collaboration of the labour inspection services with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government as to the tripartite consultations at national and state levels. It also notes that in most states, inspectors of factories consult the trade union or workers’ representatives during inspection. As far as inspection at docks and ports are concerned, involvement of local union leaders is considered by the inspectors of dock safety. Finally, representatives of the workers accompany the inspecting officers for inspections in mines. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether deliberations with the social partners have touched upon labour inspection matters and the outcome of such deliberations. It would also be grateful if the Government would provide concrete examples of collaboration which may have increased the effectiveness of the labour inspection system, for example, through the treatment of complaints communicated to labour inspectors by trade unions in specific sectors or states.

 Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with interest the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of registered and working factories and the workers employed therein as well as on industrial injuries. It also notes the information available in the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. It recalls that it has welcomed in the past the statistical data on the number of registered and working factories and the workers employed therein, as well as on industrial accidents, provided in the Pocket Book of Labour Statistics published by the Labour Bureau of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

In its latest report the Government indicates that data on labour inspection activities are published in the annual report of the Ministry and that the process of sending the relevant reports and documents to the ILO will continue. It also indicates that a Bill to Amend the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by Certain Establishments) Act, 1988 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Parliament) on 22 August 2005 and was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour for its examination. Following two tripartite meetings with the representatives of employers’ and workers’ groups, on 23 January and 22 June 2006, no consensus was reached on the Bill which envisages simplification of forms of returns and registers required to be maintained under certain laws. The Committee notes in particular that the amendments will modify the scope of application of the Act to establishments employing over 500 persons instead of 19 persons as is currently the case. This will result, according to the Government, in reducing the number of registers from 53 to two and the number of returns from 11 to one under various labour laws. It will also allow for the maintenance of registers on computers and for transmitting the annual reports or other reports by email, and prescribing uniform penalties for obstruction and non-maintenance of records under the abovementioned bills.

The Committee emphasizes that the availability of comprehensive data on the number of industrial and commercial workplaces liable to labour inspection and of the number of workers covered is indeed essential in making an overall assessment of the impact of the labour inspection system and identifying possible areas for improvement, including in relation to the available human and material resources, as provided for in Article 10(a)(i) and (ii) of the Convention. The Committee therefore considers that any legislative amendment aimed at reducing the number of registers should not have a negative impact on the level of data collected under the current system, while at the same time, the administrative burden may be alleviated through information technology. It also recalls the interest of publishing all the data required by Article 21 of the Convention in an annual inspection report so that the report may reflect as faithfully as possible the scope, coverage and effectiveness of the labour inspectorate and allow for the elaboration of accurate impact analyses and needs assessments in relation to human and material resources, with a view to the progressive improvement of the functioning of the labour inspection system.

The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of any development in relation to the envisaged legislative amendments and once again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the central authority publishes in the very near future an annual report on labour inspection activities containing all the data required by Article 21.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, including detailed statistical data. It also notes the comments by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and the All India Manufacturers’ Organisation (AIMO) which were forwarded with the Government’s report.

Articles 2, 3, 10, 11, 12(1)(a) and 16 of the Convention

1. Coverage and functioning of the labour inspection system. The Committee recalls its previous comments according to which one of the priorities with regard to labour set by the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), adopted in 2004 by the Government, was the re-examination of labour laws to reduce labour inspectors’ power (“Inspector Raj”). According to a communication by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), internal directives had been issued in most states in the name of “Ending Inspector Raj”, so that no labour inspection was to be carried out; the lack of labour inspection and monitoring by the Labour Department, even in many factories in the national capital territory of Delhi and industrial areas, such as Mayapuri and Patparganj, was resulting in frequent violations of minimum wage legislation and a lack of safety measures leading to frequent accidents.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply according to which the Ministry of Labour and Employment is considering the re-examination of labour laws in order to ensure a hassle-free industrial environment and reduce unnecessary interference of inspecting staff; however, this does not mean that there will be lack of monitoring of the application of labour laws and internal instructions in most states preventing inspections. The Ministry has also taken steps to make the system of inspection mostly complaint driven.

The Government adds that “‘Ending Inspector Raj” has not been a thriving concept” in the Chief Labour Commissioner’s (Central) Organisation (CLC(C)), entrusted with the task of maintaining industrial relations, enforcement of labour laws and verification of trade union membership in the Central Sphere. Therefore, in the Central Sphere, workplaces liable for labour inspections are actually inspected. The Committee takes note of the detailed statistical information provided in this regard in the Government’s report. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide statistics on the labour inspection activities of the CLC(C) and their results.

With regard to the inspection system outside the central sphere, the Committee notes that the aim of reducing “Inspector Raj” in the framework of the NCMP is to avoid a proliferation of inspections in the same enterprise, including labour inspections, and once again emphasizes that any measure taken to limit the number of labour inspections is a restriction incompatible with the main objective of labour inspection, which is the protection of workers, and is contrary to Article 16 of the Convention which provides that workplaces or enterprises liable to labour inspection should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. A complaint driven system aimed at reducing “unnecessary interference of inspecting staff” is also incompatible with Article 15(c) for, as a consequence, it makes it impossible for labour inspectors to respect the requirement of confidentiality relating to complaints (source and fact that an inspection visit is made as a result of a complaint).

With regard to its previous comments on the unequal coverage of the labour inspection system from one state to another in terms of workers and workplaces, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that measures will be taken to collect information on the coverage of workplaces and workers liable to inspection throughout the country. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate to the ILO as quickly as possible comprehensive statistical information on labour inspection staff and activities (visits, advice, enforcement) by state. It also trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures, in the light of the information collected, so that any imbalances in the coverage of workplaces and workers liable to inspection from one state to the other are redressed.

2. Exemptions of certain sectors from labour inspection and introduction of self-certification schemes. In its previous comments, the Committee, following observations made by the CITU and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) on internal directives which prevent workplace inspections in special economic zones (SEZs) and in the information technology (IT) and IT-enabled service sectors (ITES), noted that, in fact, very few inspections had been carried out in these sectors and requested the Government to indicate the applicable legal provisions and to supply relevant detailed statistical data. The Committee also noted comments made by the CITU and the BMS with regard to the self-certification scheme implemented since 2008, in particular as to the absence of any mechanism for the verification by the labour inspectorate of information supplied through this procedure, and had requested information on the performance of this system in practice.

The Government replied in its previous and latest reports that there are no separate labour laws for SEZs and that the implementation of labour laws in SEZs is ensured through the respective machineries of the central or state governments, as appropriate, subject to certain dispensations provided to SEZ units such as the delegation of powers to the development commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the declaration of the SEZs as public utility services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In relation to the IT–ITES sectors, the Government indicates that working conditions are regulated to a large extent by the generally applicable labour laws and the state governments are legally vested with powers to deal with the violation of labour laws including in the IT sector. However, the Committee notes that in the 2007–08 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, it is indicated that the CLC(C) has advised its subordinate offices in respect of IT software and IT service industries, that “routine and periodic inspections may not be necessary since the employees engaged by these IT industries are usually qualified and, therefore, are in a better position to protect and promote their interests”. Enforcement of labour laws in these establishments is carried out through returns submitted by the employers under various labour laws. In its latest report the Government indicates that this type of enforcement is being continued in IT software and IT service industries.

With regard to the self-certification schemes introduced in April 2008, the Government indicates that in the context of the preparation of the 11th  Five-Year Plan (2007–12), the Planning Commission set up a Working Group on Labour Laws and Other Labour Regulations which made the following recommendation on the self-certification system: “Since inspections are becoming complaint driven, the problems of “Inspector Raj” may not be as formidable as it is made out to be. The system of inspections cannot be eliminated, as it would compromise with the interests of workers, especially those who are vulnerable. Hence it would be more pragmatic to promote transparency by resorting to self-certification system and placing employee-related information obtained through this method in the website”. As a result, since 1 April 2008, those employing up to 40 persons are required to give only a self-certificate regarding compliance, while those employing 40 or more persons submit a self-certificate duly certified by a chartered accountant. According to the Government, this has been introduced to minimize routine inspections of complying employers. In this regard, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, in general, the risk of non-application of labour legislation is not less significant in establishments employing a small number of workers than in larger enterprises. The Committee also notes that a new inspection policy has been introduced since 1 April 2008, placing emphasis on inspection of newly covered units, defaulters and those not submitting self-certification with a view to concentrating on improving compliance. According to the Government the information previously requested by the Committee on the functioning of this system is still being collected and will be furnished on receipt.

Recalling once again that under Article 16, workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary, the Committee urges the Government to adopt measures to ensure the full implementation of this provision by ensuring notably that the issuing of any dispensation and the introduction of a self-certification system does not affect the effectiveness of the labour inspection system and especially the frequency and thoroughness of inspection visits. In particular:

–           The Committee requests the Government to specify the dispensations provided to EPZ and SEZ units and the extent to which they have an impact on labour inspection; it would also be grateful if the Government would furnish detailed statistical information on the: enterprises and workers in EPZs and SEZs; labour inspectors who oversee them; inspections carried out; offences reported; penalties imposed; and industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease reported.

–           The Committee requests the Government to forward examples of returns submitted on the application of labour laws in the IT and ITES sector and to describe the process through which such returns are submitted and verified by the labour inspectors.

–           The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the impact of the self-certification system introduced on 1 April 2008, notably on the frequency and effectiveness of inspection visits, to indicate the sectors in which self-certification is most prominent and to describe the arrangements made for the verification of information supplied by employers in self-certification schemes, the handling of any disputes and the action taken with regard to violations that are identified.

3. Free access of labour inspectors to workplaces. The Committee recalls that the CITU had previously indicated that in the State of Haryana no labour inspection could be carried out without the prior authorization of the Secretary of Labour which was never given. Moreover, the lack of inspections in factories had led to the failure to implement basic labour laws on minimum wages and violations of freedom of association. The Government does not provide a specific reply to these allegations and is confined to reiterating previously provided information on the future amendment of section 9 of the Factories Act (Powers of Inspectors) and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act which will establish explicitly the right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely. According to the Government, these amendments are included in the next batch. Recalling that, in accordance with Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention, labour inspectors shall be empowered to enter freely workplaces liable to inspection, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures aimed at amending section 9 of the Factories Act (Powers of Inspectors) and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act without further delay, so that this right is guaranteed. The Government is requested to keep the ILO informed of progress made to this end and to supply a copy of the amended texts once they are adopted.

Articles 6 and 15(a). Independence and integrity of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, according to the AIMO, any proposal to give substantial powers to labour inspectors may give rise to a problem of corruption. It also refers to the Government’s indication that steps are taken to make the labour inspection system complaints-driven in order to reduce arbitrariness. The Committee recalls that under Article 6, the conditions of service of inspection staff, notably their wages, should be such as to guarantee their independence vis-à-vis improper external influences and that under Article 15, labour inspectors should be prohibited from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision. These provisions are intended to provide safeguards against improper influences. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the pay scale of labour inspectors by comparison to the remuneration of comparable categories of public officers like tax inspectors. It also requests the Government to forward the text of any code of conduct or similar document applicable to labour inspectors.

Article 18. Adequacy of penalties. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that an amendment enhancing the penalties under various provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, was at an advanced stage of enactment and that a proposed amendment was being prepared under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986. In its latest report the Government indicates that the proposal to incorporate the amendments enhancing the penalties under these Acts is still under the active consideration of the Government and that once the amendments are notified, the final text will be sent to the ILO. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures to have these amendments adopted without further delay so as to establish penalties that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers, and to furnish copies of the final texts to the ILO.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

With reference to its observation, the Committee also wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 5(a) of the Convention. Cooperation between the inspection services and other government services. The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the document entitled “Annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Employment 2007–08” published on its web site, an “area officer system” has been created in the Ministry. Area officers are required to visit major states once each quarter and other states once every six months and, inter alia, to discuss during their visits with the state government officials, the implementation of labour laws, including in special economic zones (SEZs). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the activities of the area officers and describe in detail their role in the implementation of labour laws, and particularly the manner in which they collaborate with labour inspectors for this purpose.

Article 5(b). Collaboration of the labour inspection services with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that, in a communication dated 25 August 2008, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) alleges that no trade unions are consulted at any stage by labour inspectors in most States. The Committee observes that the Government has not supplied the precise information that it requested in its previous comments in this regard. It requests the Government once again to supply information on the arrangements made or envisaged for effective collaboration between the inspection services and employers’ and workers’ organizations, not only during workplace inspections, but also in the advisory activities on labour laws undertaken by inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with interest that statistical data on the number of registered and working factories and the workers employed therein, and on industrial accidents for the years 2001 and 2002, are available in the Pocket Book of Labour Statistics published in 2006 by the Labour Bureau of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the central authority publishes in the very near future an annual report on labour inspection activities containing all the data required by Article 21 and that it is communicated to the ILO within the delays prescribed by Article 20.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It further notes the comments made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in a communication dated 25 August 2008, and the comments of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) which were transmitted with the Government’s report.

Articles 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, paragraph 1(a), and 16 of the Convention. (a) Coverage and functioning of the labour inspection system  The Committee notes that one of the priorities with regard to labour set by the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), adopted in 2004 by the Government, is the re-examination of labour laws to reduce “Inspector Raj”. In its communication, the CITU alleges that, in the name of “ending Inspector Raj”, internal directives have been issued in most states that no labour inspection is to be carried out. The organization adds that the lack of labour inspection and monitoring by the Labour Department, even in many factories in the national capital territory of Delhi and industrial areas, such as Mayapuri and Patparganj, is resulting in frequent violations of minimum wage legislation and a lack of safety measures leading to frequent accidents.

It would appear to the Committee that the Government’s aim in relation to the NCMP with regard to reducing “Inspector Raj” is to avoid a proliferation of inspections in the same enterprise, including labour inspections. The Committee, however, wishes to emphasize that it considers any measure taken to limit the number of labour inspections as a restriction that is incompatible with the main objective of labour inspection, which is the protection of workers. Recalling, in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention, that workplaces or enterprises liable to labour inspection should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that full effect is given to this provision of the Convention and to keep the ILO informed of the measures adopted.

In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the scope of labour inspection, in terms of the workers covered and workplaces visited, varied considerably from one state to another. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure a better coverage of workplaces and workers liable to inspection throughout the country in the light of the needs of each state (by increasing staff numbers, the number of inspections, etc.). While noting the Government’s reply that the information is being collected and will be supplied once it has been received, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future and that the relevant information will be sent to the ILO.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information in reply to the CITU’s allegations of the lack of monitoring of the application of labour laws and the existence of internal instructions in most states preventing inspections. The Government is also requested to provide detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to reducing “Inspector Raj” and to specify their impact on the labour inspection system, and particularly on the number of inspections carried out by labour inspectors throughout the country.

(b) Labour inspections in special economic zones (SEZs) and in enterprises in the information technology (IT) and IT-enabled service sectors (ITES). In its previous comments, the Committee observed that very few inspections had been carried out in enterprises in SEZs, and particularly in the IT and ITES sectors. It requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions applicable to these enterprises and sectors and to supply statistical data on the number of enterprises and workers in the above sectors, the number of labour inspectors, offences reported, penalties imposed and also the number of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease reported. In its communication, the BMS alleges that in newly emerging sectors, such as IT, and in SEZs, the labour administration is denied a role and that legal measures need to be taken by the Government to remedy this situation. Furthermore, the CITU states that the practice of issuing internal directives to prevent workplace inspections is most rampant in SEZs and in the IT and ITES sectors.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, there are no separate labour laws for SEZs and that labour laws, as amended from time to time by the respective state government, apply in SEZs. The Government adds that the implementation of labour laws in SEZs is ensured through the respective machineries of the central or state governments, as appropriate. Noting the Government’s indication that it is seeking to obtain from the agencies concerned statistics on the number of enterprises and workers in SEZs, the Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to send information on the functioning of the labour inspection system in SEZs, including the data requested previously, which are indispensable to assess the situation with regard to the enforcement of labour laws and, accordingly, the protection of workers. It also asks the Government to supply information on the points raised by the CITU and the BMS with regard to the lack of inspections in these sectors.

(c) Free access of labour inspectors to workplaces. Labour inspections in the state of Haryana. Self-certification system. In its communication, the CITU adds that the situation with regard to labour inspections has not improved in the state of Haryana. It further alleges that no labour inspection can be carried out without the prior authorization of the Secretary of Labour and that such authorization is never given. According to the organization, no inspections are conducted in many factories and this situation leads to the failure to implement basic labour laws on minimum wages and to violations of freedom of association. Recalling that, in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, labour inspectors shall be empowered to enter freely workplaces liable to inspection, the Committee requests the Government to supply its comments on the CITU’s allegations.

Noting the Government’s commitment to amend section 9 of the Factories Act (Powers of Inspectors) and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act to establish explicitly the right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely, the Committee requests it to take the necessary measures to re-establish this right wherever it may have been removed. It hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to inform the ILO of the measures taken for that purpose and of the adoption of legal provisions giving full effect to the above provisions of the Convention. The Government is requested to supply a copy of the amended texts once they are adopted.

With regard to the self-certification scheme implemented recently, the CITU observes that there is no provision for the verification of information supplied through this procedure, and the BMS alleges that, within the context of globalization and labour reforms, there is an attempt to do away with the system of legal inspection to the detriment of the workers’ interests. According to the Government, the information requested by the Committee on the functioning of this system is being collected and will be provided when it has been received. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply this information. Furthermore, referring again to Article 16, which provides that workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary, it requests the Government to describe the measures adopted to ensure that the self-certification system does not lead to a restriction of the frequency and thoroughness of inspection visits. If the necessary measures have not yet been taken, the Committee urges the Government to adopt them and to keep the ILO duly informed. It also asks the Government to supply information on the arrangements made for the verification of information supplied by employers, the handling of any disputes and the action taken with regard to violations that are identified in the state of Haryana and throughout the country.

Article 18. Adequacy of penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that an amendment enhancing the penalties under various provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, is at an advanced stage of enactment and that a proposed amendment is being prepared under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee hopes that these amendments will be adopted in the near future and will establish penalties that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers, and that copies of the final texts will be sent to the ILO in the near future.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on certain other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Also referring to its observation, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the following points.

Article 5(b) of the Convention. Collaboration with employers’ and workers’ organizations. According to the Government, factory inspectors consult the trade union or the workers’ representative during inspections in most federated states. The Government also indicates that the chief inspector has undertaken to involve trade unions during inspection operations, wherever they are not yet involved. The Committee requests the Government to continue supplying detailed information on arrangements for effective collaboration between the inspection services and employers’ and workers’ organizations, not only during workplace inspections but also in the context of advisory and information activities on labour legislation undertaken by inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the inspection services. The Committee notes with interest that the information required by the above provisions of the Convention is contained in the annual “reference note” published by the Directorate General, Factory Advice Services and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI). Emphasizing the importance of the availability of the most reliable data possible covering the whole of the country in order to evaluate the functioning of the inspection system and thus be able to allocate human and material resources according to needs and with account being taken of available resources, the Committee hopes that the Government will continue to make the necessary efforts to collect recent data from the inspection services of the federal states and that this information will continue to be published regularly in the DGFASLI reference note. It also requests the Government to continue to send this document to the ILO, with its reports pursuant to article 22 of the ILO Constitution.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report in reply to its previous comments and the detailed statistics accompanying it. It also notes the discussions of the Indian Labour Conference on the monitoring of the application of labour legislation which took place in April 2007.

1. Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention. Free access of inspectors to workplaces. (i) Inspection visits (period of time). In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized the risk of different interpretations from one state to another of the provisions of labour legislation and, in particular, the provisions relating to the rights and obligations of labour inspectors. In reply, the Government points out that the consistent application of the Factories Act, 1948, throughout the country is ensured by the dissemination of standard regulations drawn up by the Directorate General, Factory Advice Services and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI), which serve as a model for implementing regulations in the various states. The Government explains that the content of these regulations is discussed at an annual conference of chief inspectors organized by the DGFASLI. The Committee notes, however, that these regulations do not exist in all states and that the model regulations do not contain any details regarding the period of time during which inspection visits may be carried out or regarding how the expression “at a reasonable time” used in the labour legislation shall be interpreted. The Committee emphasizes in this respect that the abovementioned provisions of the Convention according to which inspectors must be empowered “to enter freely … at any hour of the day or night any workplace liable to inspection” and “to enter by day any premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection” aim to enable inspections to be carried out wherever they are necessary and technically possible, with a view to ensuring the protection of workers. Inspectors must therefore have the power to decide the appropriate time for undertaking an inspection visit. The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation concerned and the standard implementing regulations for the Factories Act and also the regulations adopted by the states are supplemented by provisions which expressly provide labour inspectors with the right of free access to industrial and commercial workplaces, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention, and hopes that the Government will be in a position to supply information in its next report on all progress made in this regard.

(ii) Workplace inspection visits in export processing zones and special economic zones, and in the information technology (IT) and IT-enabled service (ITES) sectors. The Committee notes, according to the statistics sent by the Government in reply to its previous comments, that very few inspections have been undertaken in these zones and fields of activity which are expanding rapidly in a number of states. The Government also indicates that IT and ITES activities are not covered by the Factories Act in the vast majority of states. In view of this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions applicable to conditions of work in these sectors of activity, whether or not export processing zones or special economic zones are concerned, at central or state level, and to indicate the manner in which the application of these provisions is monitored. In addition, the Committee requests the Government once again to supply available statistics on the number of enterprises and workers in the abovementioned sectors, indicating, if applicable, the workplaces and workers covered by the labour inspectorate, the number of authorized inspectors, contraventions recorded, penalties imposed and also the number of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease reported.

(iii) Inspections in the State of Haryana. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments concerning measures likely to limit inspection visits in this state, in particular in workplaces in the IT and ITES sectors. The Government states that the labour inspection staff consists of 87 labour inspectors, 22 factory inspectors, four doctors and two surgeons for all the districts of Haryana. It also points out that 2,505 inspections pursuant to the Factories Act and 26,131 inspections pursuant to the Shops and Establishments Act were carried out in 2005, including in the abovementioned sectors, under a self-certification system. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information in its next report on the working of the self-certification system, on its impact on the frequency and effectiveness of inspection visits and also on arrangements for the verification of information supplied, the handling of any disputes and action taken with regard to reported contraventions.

2. Articles 10, 11 and 16. Coverage of the inspection system. According to the data supplied on the number of inspection service staff, the number of workplaces and workers employed therein and the number of inspection visits conducted, compiled in the “reference note” published by the DGFASLI in 2005, the scope of inspection service activities in terms of workers covered and workplaces visited varies considerably from one state to another. Emphasizing the importance of the role of labour inspectors in the protection of workers, and particularly in combating child labour, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure better coverage of workplaces and workers liable to inspection throughout the country in the light of the needs of each state (increasing staff numbers, increasing the number of inspection visits, etc.).

3. Article 18. Adequacy of penalties. Specifically regarding the penalties and fines applicable to violations of the Factories Act and the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, the Government merely states, in its report sent in 2006, that it is considering amending the provisions of these laws which set forth penal sanctions. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on all developments in this regard and on any legislation adopted.

The Committee is also raising a number of other points in a direct request to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report containing replies to its previous comments, as well as the documentation attached. It also notes the Centre of Indian Trade Unions’ (CITU) comments, sent to the ILO on 4 April 2004, the Government’s reply to these comments, as well as the further CITU comments received on 14 October 2004.

The CITU deplores the multiple restrictions of the right of labour inspectors to enter workplaces freely, the lack of human resources and material means, the inappropriate level of penalties in relation to their objective of dissuasion and the lack of cooperation with trade unions on the occasion of inspection visits.

1. The right of labour inspectors to enter workplaces freely (Article 12 of the Convention). In reply to the Committee’s observations, the Government insists that section 9 of the Factories Act, 1948, and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, are in conformity with Article 12 of the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the legislation mentioned does not explicitly provide for the right to enter workplaces freely and without prior notification.

The Government also indicates, in response to the comments made previously by Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) alleging the abolition of labour inspectorates in a number of states, that this allegation is unfounded. However, according to the CITU, measures have been taken to prevent labour inspectors from having access to workplaces liable to inspection. The Government states that it does not yet have at its disposal the relevant information, although a copy of the order (No. ST/4/2001/S497 S36) issued by the State Haryana under which inspections are prohibited, unless on the basis of prior approval by the highest state office, represented by the Labour Commissioner, has been communicated to the ILO by the CITU.

Furthermore, according to the CITU, inspectors are not allowed to enter export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones (SEZs) without the permission of the Development Commissioner, the administrative authority in the zones concerned. The Government strongly contests this point.

According to the CITU, in the field of information technology and IT-enabled service establishments (ITES), general exemptions from all labour laws are granted through executive orders, inspections are no longer carried out and violations of labour legislation are no longer detected or prosecuted. In reply to these observations, the Government affirms that the labour legislation is still applicable to this sector.

Referring to its 2001 observation, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 12(1)(a), labour inspectors should be empowered to enter freely, without previous notice at any hour of the day or night, any workplace liable to inspection. No prior authorization may therefore be required. The Committee also recalls the Government’s obligation to ensure a precise and coherent legal framework to be respected throughout the country, thereby excluding the possibility for federated states to establish prohibitions or restrictive legal or practical measures in the area of labour inspection. According to the Government, the terms "as he thinks fit" and "reasons to believe" in section 9 of the Factories Act, 1948, and section 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, imply that labour inspectors may use their discretion in the use of their powers, including the right of free entry without prior notice. The Committee considers that section 9 and section 4 of the above Acts may give rise to variations in the interpretation of the scope of labour inspectors’ duties and powers and could result in different legal provisions and practices in the various states. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take measures to ensure the conformity of its law and practice with the wording and spirit of the Convention and to inform the ILO about any progress made to this end.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, section 7(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, section 27 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, section 15 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and section 14 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, labour inspectors may enter the workplace at "a reasonable time" to perform inspections. The Committee emphasizes that, pursuant to the Convention, the right to freely enter workplaces liable to inspection should be granted at any hour of the day or night, without taking into consideration any other condition (Article 12, paragraph 1(a)). It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to this end and to keep the ILO informed.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the Weekly Holidays Act, 1942, and the Sale Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, are still in force and under the control of labour inspectors.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide the ILO with the more recent statistics related to the information technology (IT) sector, including the number of inspections carried out in this sector, the number of enterprises and workers liable to inspection, the number of labour inspectors responsible for controlling this sector, the number of violations recorded and penalties imposed, and the number of occupational diseases and accidents reported.

The Government is also requested to provide the same statistics for EPZs and the SEZs.

2. Obligation to produce a report (Articles 20 and 21). Referring to the CITU’s comments, the Committee notes the detailed labour inspection reports. However, the Committee observes that the statistics on the activities of State Labour Departments and factory inspectorates are not complete. The reports often indicate that data for certain states have not been transmitted. Furthermore, these statistics relate to the enforcement of various acts and do not therefore allow a general picture to be built up of labour inspection activities throughout the country. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed statistics and information on the distribution of the various factory inspectorates in each state, the number of inspectors in each inspectorate, the number of inspections carried out, the number of entities and workplaces covered by the various State Labour Departments and the various factory inspectorates under the Factories Act.

With regard to the statistics of occupational diseases and accidents, the Committee urges the Government to take measures rapidly to ensure that they are communicated by each of the inspectorates for inclusion in future annual reports.

The Committee recalls in this regard the obligations set out in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, which also apply to federated states under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 4. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to improve the data collection system and to keep the ILO informed of any progress in this respect.

3. Effectiveness of labour inspection; sanctions and fines. The Committee notes the CITU’s comments on the annual report (2002-03) alleging that the loss of effectiveness of the labour inspectorate is due to the lack of human and material resources and to the diminished infrastructure compared to the growing number of establishments liable to inspection, in particular in the "central sphere". The CITU also deplores the paltry nature of the sanctions in relation to the objective of dissuasion. The Government indicates that during the year 2002-03, 42,391 inspections were conducted in the "central sphere" and that, despite the many constraints, effectiveness is still guaranteed.

The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 10, the number of labour inspectors should be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of their functions with due regard to the importance and complexity of their duties and the material resources available. Moreover, in accordance with Article 11, labour inspectors should be provided with suitably equipped local offices and transport facilities. The Committee hopes that the Government will gradually improve the working conditions of inspectors and that relevant information will soon be sent to the ILO.

The Committee notes that the penalties established by section 95 of the Factories Act, 1948, section 14 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, and section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, consist of sentences of imprisonment and fines, the amount of which may be increased in the event of repeat offences. Referring to paragraph 263 of its General Survey on labour inspection, 1985, the Committee emphasizes that penalties should be fixed at a sufficiently high level to have a dissuasive effect and should therefore be periodically reviewed. It urges the Government to take the appropriate measures for this purpose and to keep the ILO informed.

4. Cooperation with trade unions and employers’ organizations. The CITU deplores the lack of cooperation between trade unions and the inspection services. It indicates that the trade unions are often not informed of inspections and are not involved in the labour inspection process. In response to these allegations and to the Committee’s previous comments on this subject, the Government indicates that labour inspectors usually consult trade union representatives during inspections on the application of labour law provisions, but that there is no statutory requirement for the involvement of trade unions in the inspection process. It adds that cooperation with employees’ representatives takes the form of joint tripartite Dock Safety Committees, headed by the Chief Inspector of Dock Safety, under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986, and bipartite Safety Committees, under the Factories Act. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, union representatives also participate in Dock Safety Week, periodic meetings have been held between labour inspectors and trade union leaders, and dockworkers participate in investigations and training programmes.

The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 5(b), officials of the labour inspectorate should collaborate with employers and workers or their organizations. It draws the Government’s attention to the guidance provided by Part II of Recommendation No. 81 on the possible forms of such collaboration. Although the involvement of trade unions in inspection visits is not provided for under the Convention, the Committee considers that the association of workers’ representatives with inspection visits is very beneficial. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate if measures have been taken or are envisaged to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information provided in reply to its previous comments. It also notes the comments made by the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) trade union on 17 May 2001, and the partial information provided by the Government on the points raised.

1. According to the HMS, certain state governments, including Maharashtra, have abolished labour inspectorates, which has resulted in a significant increase in violations of the legislation by employers, to the detriment of workers. In reply to the Committee’s previous observation, in which it was requested to indicate the manner in which the right of inspectors is ensured, in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, to enter workplaces without notice and without prior authorization, the Government refers to section 9 of the Factories Act and section 4 of the Dockworkers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, under which the powers of labour inspectors include most of those laid down in the Convention. However, the Committee notes that the above provisions do not address the right of inspectors to enter workplaces freely. The Committee reminds the Government in this respect that, in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 1(a), this right should be exercised freely and without previous notice in workplaces formally liable to the supervision of the labour inspectorate, under the sole condition that inspectors are in possession of proper credentials. In its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee considered that "the unexpected nature of the inspection visit is the best guarantee of effective supervision" and that the inspector must be able to enter undertakings without warning the employer or his representative in advance, especially when it is to be feared that prior notice might result in the concealment of an infringement (paragraph 158). Noting the Government’s statement that the case of the states in which it is alleged that labour inspection has been prohibited is under examination, the Committee hopes that this examination will be based on the above provision of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved and to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the national legislation is supplemented by provisions giving effect to Article 12, paragraph 1(a).

2. According to the above trade union, the provision of the Convention prescribing the obligation to promote collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and workers’ organizations is not given effect. The Committee notes in this respect the information provided by the Government on the existence of various tripartite bodies for collaboration at the national level, including the Indian Labour Conference, the tripartite dock safety committees which function in every major port, the Dockworkers’ Advisory Committee established under the Dockworkers (Regulation of Employment) Act and the meetings of the tripartite Safety Committee and the Mining Inspectorate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information specifically on the manner in which collaboration is promoted between labour inspectors and workers, and their organizations, in accordance with Article 5(b) of the Convention.

3. The above trade union finally raises the question of the publication and content of the annual report. In the first place, it alleges that this report does not contain detailed information on such matters as the staff of the labour inspection system, statistics of workplaces liable to inspection, inspection visits, violations and penalties imposed, and statistics of industrial accidents. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, detailed reports are provided on the labour inspection system, industrial accidents, etc. It refers in this respect to the annual report on the work of dockworkers 1999-2000 and the document entitled "Standard Reference Note DGFASLI Organization 2000", on the cover of which is indicated "for official use only". The Committee also notes the statistical tables of the results of inspections undertaken on the application of certain laws, particularly relating to wages in mines and railways, working hours, child labour and the minimum wage for the period between 1992 and 2000. It also notes the various tables reflecting the information available on the number of inspections and the sanctions imposed in 1998 in commercial and transport establishments, as well as the tables on the distribution of the staff of the labour inspectorate in 1997 and 1998; the statistics on the number of inspections by state and by type of inspection according to their frequency in 1997 and 1998; statistics of industrial injuries in factories and cases of occupational disease in 1997 and 1998; and finally, statistics on the sanctions imposed on cases of violation of the general legislation, provisions concerning women, children, registers and instructions, and safety and health for 1997 and 1998. The Committee, however, recalls that the obligation to publish an annual inspection report, as set out in Articles 20 and 21, has the objective, particularly at the national level, of bringing to the knowledge of employers and workers and their organizations information concerning the activities and results of the inspection services in all workplaces liable to inspection with a view to enabling them to react and indicate, where appropriate, their opinions or make proposals with a view to improvements. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to take measures to ensure that an annual report of a general nature on the activities of the inspection services, containing information on the each of the subjects enumerated in Article 21, is published within the time limits prescribed in Article 20, and that a copy is transmitted to the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that no annual inspection report, as envisaged in Articles 20 and 21, has been provided since 1989. As a result, the Committee does not have at its disposal the elements which it needs to assess the extent to which the Convention is applied in practice, and particularly the manner in which effect is given to Article 16, which requires that workplaces liable to inspection shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions which come under the responsibility of labour inspectors. The Committee emphasizes that one of the requirements for the effectiveness of inspections is set out in Article 12(a), and consists of the right which should be conferred upon inspectors to enter any workplace liable to inspection without previously notifying the employer or his representative with a view to inspecting the normal conditions of work, and it would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of the texts governing the right of inspectors to enter workplaces in each state. The Government is also requested to take the appropriate measures to ensure this right, in accordance with the above provision, and to provide information on these measures, in cases where this right is not granted, and particularly in states where the right of free entry is subject to the prior notification of the employer or his representative.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee requests the Government to provide a detailed report, in conformity with the report form adopted by the Governing Body.

2. The Committee notes that no inspection report has been received since 1989. It underlines the importance of the compilation and publication of annual inspection reports as a means of assessing the proper functioning of the system of labour inspection. It hopes that such an annual report containing all the information required by Article 21, paragraphs (a) to (g), will be regularly transmitted to the ILO within the time-limits set by Article 20.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the observations respectively made by Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat regarding the conditions of life and work of workers employed in the "Ash Area" by the Gujarat Electricity Board and by the Federation of Unorganized Migrant Labour of Goa (FUMLOG) concerning precarious working conditions of migrant workers employed in Goa. The Committee also notes the Government's comments on the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat's observations.

1. The Committee notes that, according to Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat, about 4,000 Scheduled Tribe workers, the majority being women (all belonging to the low caste called "adivasis"), are forced to work in inhuman conditions in the "Ash Area" by the Gujarat Electricity Board, a statutory board of the state government of Gujarat, notwithstanding that the "Ash Area" is attached to the Thermal Power Station and is a factory under the Factory Act. Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat states in particular that workers work in hazardous conditions without safety equipment for long hours without being paid for overtime. It further states that the factory inspectorate, the labour commission and other government agencies have taken no action for the implementation of the Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum Wages Act, Bonus Act, and Payment of Gratuity Act. Thus, Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat has filed a petition to the High Court of Gujarat for the implementation of various labour laws in the State of Gujarat.

In reply to the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat's observations, the Government states inter alia that the complaint is not about the regular company (Thermal Power Station, Ukai) and its 2,150 regular employees, but is specifically regarding workers who are working outside the factory premises to separate burnt coal from the flowing water. The Government specifies that the Thermal Power Station, Ukai, is a government factory owned by the Gujarat Electricity Board which has given the work of lifting the burnt coal ash to a firm which employs 200 persons known as Mukadams, who have not been registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Government indicates that no inspections have been carried out before the filing of the complaint. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the Government Labour Officer, Surat, have since visited the workplace and carried out an inspection. These officers have made inspection remarks under the Contract Labour Act against the Gujarat Electricity Board and the Ukai Thermal Power Station as principal employers and the prosecution proposal against them is under consideration by the Government. The Committee further notes that the proposal for action under the Payment of Gratuity Act is also under consideration and that the proposal under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, against the contractor was sanctioned by the Commissioner of Labour on 20 August 1996. It finally notes that no inspection has been made under the Factories Act as the matter is pending in court for a decision as to whether the Act applies to the "Ash Area" or not.

The Committee takes due note of these indications and requests the Government to indicate any development with respect to the above-mentioned writ petition of the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat before the High Court of Gujarat. It also requests the Government to indicate any progress regarding the various prosecution proposals under its consideration.

2. The Committee notes that, according to the Federation of Unorganized Migrant Labour of Goa (FUMLOG), migrant workers are employed by factory owners in Goa under very precarious conditions of work, safety and living, without any social security protection and, in most cases, without being paid the minimum wage. The Committee notes that the Government has provided no information regarding these observations. It invites the Government to do so.