Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 2003)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance). The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the issues raised under this point are awaiting information from the Ministry of Shipping and Aviation. The Committee also notes the Government’s repeated indication that the Government is currently reviewing the possibility to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending section 127(2) of the Act, either by repealing the provisions permitting the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that, under section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, for a term of up to five years. Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that with the expiration of the emergency regulations, the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, is no longer in force. As regards the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, the Government states that this Act applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential public services essential to the life of the community. Section 2 of the Act can only be invoked by the President during an emergency situation, which is no longer in existence. The Government furthermore states that no persons have been held in custody or imprisoned for the violation of essential services under the Act.

In its earlier comments, the Committee also noted that the Industrial Disputes Act which makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment of up to six months (involving compulsory prison labour) the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act). The Committee observed that the Government in its 2010 report indicated that the penalties in the Industrial Disputes Act are being revised by a Labour Law Reform Committee and that suitable measures would be taken to address the issues relating to sections 32(2), 40(1)(n) and 43(1) of the Act.

The Committee notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, that the Industrial Disputes Act has been amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 39 of 2011. Yet, the Committee notes that, instead of bringing national legislation in compliance with the Convention, the amended Industrial Disputes Act has increased sanctions from six up to 12 months of imprisonment.

With respect to the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, in practice, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that no employee has been imprisoned (and subjected to compulsory prison labour) pursuant to the contravention of section 40(1) only. The Government further indicates that section 32 of the Act provides that industry employer or employees can resort to lockout or strike action provided that a three-week notice period is served. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that no person has been imprisoned (and subjected to compulsory prison labour) pursuant to the contravention of section 32.

While noting that no persons have been imprisoned and subjected to compulsory prison labour for participation in strike action, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure, both in legislation and practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are revised in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.