Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1996, publiée 85ème session CIT (1997)

1. The Committee takes note of the communication sent by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat (BMP), a trade union, dated 2 May 1996 regarding alleged practices of "inhuman working conditions" by the Gujarat Electricity Board, affecting a large number of scheduled tribe workers. This communication states that the Board has a large thermal power station at Ukai, Taluka Songadh, District of Surat in the State of Gujarat, which discharges the ash and unburnt coal dust produced by the boilers in an area established by the Board called the "Ash Area" where 4000 workers, a majority of them women, are employed. All of them are stated to be adivasis or tribals. These workers are required to separate coal dust from the flowing water with which the boilers are cleaned. The recovered coal dust from the effluent is then sold by the Board.

2. The BMP states that the said "Ash Area" is considered to be a factory under the Factories Act. The workers are thus entitled to receive benefits under the Factories Act, but do not. It is stated that no drinking water is provided in the work area; there are no toilets, canteen or lunch room, and no creche. Workers employed in the "Ash Area" do not have identity cards as required by law, and do not get leave. They are said to be made to work 12 hours a day without any overtime wages, and the whole "Ash Area" is polluted with coal dust and flying ash. Workers do not have any protective or safety equipment. There is no salary registry and a total of Rs.20.00 (approximately 0.72 Swiss francs at the November 1996 exchange rate) is the daily wage of a worker.The communication concludes by stating that the Labour Inspectorate and other government agencies are silent spectators to this exploitation of labour.

3. The Committee notes that the Government has stated in reply - under this Convention and others - that the regular workers in the Thermal Power Station, many of whom are contracted labourers, enjoy normal working conditions, and that the BMP's comments relate only to workers outside the plant premises who are covered by no settlement and do not work for a registered contractor. These workers, known as "Mukadams", are paid on a piece-work basis. It indicates that several actions have been brought concerning the workers by the BMP, and that without conceding its legal responsibility to do so the Gujarat Electricity Board has provided basic facilities to these workers, and certain actions are under way as the result of labour inspections. As concerns Convention No. 107 in particular, the Government has stated that there is no special labour legislation for tribal workers, so no remarks are offered. The Committee recalls in this respect that under Article 15 of the Convention, ratifying States should adopt special measures for workers belonging to these populations "so long as they are not in a position to enjoy the protection granted by law to workers in general." As it appears at this stage that the situation of these workers is being dealt with in accordance with the general labour legislation, the Committee will take up the question under the other Conventions concerned, and requests the Government to keep it informed of how the situation of these tribal workers is resolved.

4. The Committee also notes a communication sent by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) on 16 May 1996, which states that the socio-economic development of tribal populations falls far behind the national average. These comments explore in some detail questions of agricultural and industrial development, health, education, labour, and eviction of tribal populations from areas in which mining, the construction of dams or other development projects are taking place. In reply to this communication the Government has provided detailed information on its efforts in favour of tribal populations. As this communication and the Government's reply in fact concern the implementation in practice of many of the Convention's provisions, the Committee examines both of them further in the request which is being addressed directly to the Government.

5. In its previous observation the Committee had noted that a Five-Member Group had been appointed to continue to review discussions initiated in June 1993 on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, concerning which the Conference Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the work of the Five-Member Group, including a copy of any findings it may have adopted. The Committee notes that the Government stated in its report that in July 1994 the Five-Member Group presented its findings which addressed, among other points, the question of resettlement and rehabilitation. The Group recommended that a plan for the resettlement and rehabilitation of project-affected people should be prepared immediately, if not available already. Grievances and redress mechanisms should be established, and assistance of voluntary agencies should be used. The Government, in response to the findings of the Group, indicates that the implementation of the resettlement and rehabilitation measures are being monitored closely by the Narmada Control Authority and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Sub-Group of Narmada Control Authority. Field visits are undertaken by the Sub-Group and reports are submitted quarterly to the Supreme Court of India as per its directives.

6. The Committee notes that the information provided by the Government on the progress of the resettlement and rehabilitation of the tribal populations affected by the Sardar Sarova Dam and Power Project up to April 1996 indicates that substantial differences continue to exist among the states. In Gujarat, over 4,300 of the 4,600 affected families have been resettled. In Maharastra more than 1,300 of the 3,113 affected families have not been resettled; while in Madhya Pradesh a little over 3,000 of the 33,000 affected families have been resettled. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that the tribal people who have been displaced, or will be, are treated in accordance with the Convention and receive compensation in accordance with its requirements.

7. In addition to information on the actual progress of resettlement, the Committee had requested information on the rehabilitation and resettlement policies of the three above-mentioned states and on the manner in which the allocation of resettlement land takes into account the amount of land previously occupied by the displaced tribal population (the legal concept of "traditional occupation") including any measures taken or envisaged to compensate for different kinds of land use. In this regard the Committee notes with interest the copy submitted by the Government of the comparative table on the "Entitlement of Rehabilitation Benefits as per the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award and State-Wide Comparative Provisions" (15 September 1992), which compares the arrangements decided upon by those states concerned. In this regard, the Committee notes that the policies in the three states are, on most points, more favourable to the "oustees" (displaced persons) than the NWDT award, including as regards "encroachers" and "landless" oustees, though in the latter case there are fixed limits on the compensation offered. The Committee notes further the statements according to which resettlement and rehabilitation are designed to improve or at least regain the previous standard of living, guarantee relocation as village units, village sections or families, and other points. Finally, it notes the statement that in no event will any areas be submerged as a consequence of this project until all arrangements have been made for resettlement and appropriate compensation.

8. Thus, it appears that efforts have been made to provide for some compensation for lands occupied by tribal populations, even if the compensation offered is not in all cases fully in accordance with that provided for in Article 12 of the Convention. The Committee nevertheless remains concerned by the difficulty encountered in acquiring land and providing compensation, in particular in Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. It therefore requests the Government to keep it fully informed of the progress achieved in this case.

9. The Committee notes also that there are other cases in which tribal people are displaced for development purposes, and hopes that the Government will provide information on the compensation offered in these other cases.

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

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 85th Session and to report in detail in 1997.]