CMNT_TITLE

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - India (RATIFICATION: 1954)

Other comments on C029

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Garment Labour Union (GLU), received on 9 September 2015 and 22 October 2015, respectively, concerning the Summangali practice in the garment sector in Tamil Nadu affecting young women employed in spinning mills. The Committee also notes the observations made by the National Progressive Construction Workers Federation (NPCWF), received on 21 September 2015, concerning the failure of state governments to establish vigilance committees under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Bonded labour. Magnitude of the problem. The Committee previously referred to the allegations made by the ITUC that bonded labour in agriculture and in industries like mining, brick kilns, silk and cotton production, and bidi making was likely to be affecting millions of workers across the country. The Committee requested the Government to undertake a national survey on bonded labour, involving the social partners and using any statistical methods it considers appropriate.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication in its report that such a national survey cannot be conducted using statistical tools adopted for the purpose of collecting data on a macro basis, but will require information to be collected by interviewing the affected persons about the nature of the exploitation and their service conditions in order to be able to identify whether they fall into the category of bonded labour. The Government reiterates that it has provided grants to state governments to conduct district-level surveys of bonded labour and that a large number of such surveys have already been conducted. The Committee notes the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of India on 15 October 2012, a copy of which has been forwarded by the Government, which concludes that fresh surveys on bonded labour should be conducted every three years by all state governments through their district level and subdivisional vigilance committees, and that the findings of these surveys should be integrated in a computerized database available on all the websites concerned. Observing that many state governments previously reported “NIL status” for the existence of bonded labour, the Committee further notes that, the Supreme Court considers that the Guidelines on the methodology for the identification of bonded labourers published by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should be followed by all state governments. Noting the Government’s statement that it has already requested state governments to take appropriate action to implement the directives of the Supreme Court, the Committee once again urges the Government to prepare a nationwide survey on bonded labour, with the involvement of the social partners, by compiling, inter alia, the data collected from all the district-level surveys referred to above, conducted by all state governments. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide a copy of all available district-level surveys conducted in this respect. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide information without delay on the magnitude of the problem of bonded labour in the country.

Effective implementation of the legislative framework. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (BLSA) establishes penalties for compulsion to render bonded labour, advancement of bonded debt and enforcement of any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument requiring any service to be rendered under the bonded labour system. Noting that the Government’s report does not contain information in reply to its previous comments, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the proper functioning and effectiveness of the vigilance committees established by all state governments.

Penal sanctions for the exaction of bonded labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the penalties of imprisonment for up to three years and a fine established under the BLSA 1976. The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that the NHRC has been monitoring issues related to prosecutions and convictions under the BLSA 1976 and has handled complaints of alleged cases of bonded labour. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in Odisha state, 48 cases were concluded with convictions in 2012 and 17 cases have been pending prosecution since 2006 and, in the Uttrakhand state, only one case is pending prosecution. The Committee notes with regret the lack of information in the Government’s report on the penalties effectively applied, as well as on the number of prosecutions and convictions in alleged cases of bonded labour in the 33 remaining states and union territories which only report “NIL status”. The Committee recalls that Article 25 of the Convention provides that the exaction of bonded labour shall be punishable as a penal offence and it shall be an obligation of the State to ensure that the penalties imposed are really adequate and are strictly enforced. The Committee observes that the number of prosecutions and convictions concerning alleged cases of bonded labour referred to by the Government is very low in comparison to the important number of 297,413 bonded labourers who were identified and released and 277,451 who were rehabilitated up to 31 March 2013. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the means of action of state authorities in order to ensure that cases of bonded labour are effectively prosecuted and that effective and sufficiently dissuasive penalties are applied to perpetrators of bonded labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions and convictions, as well as criminal penalties imposed under the BLSA 1976, and to supply copies of the relevant court decisions.

2. Forced labour of children. Legislative framework. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was adopted in May 2012 and that it strengthens the legal protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that further amendments to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (CLPRA), are currently being examined by Parliament in order to introduce a general prohibition of employing children below the age of compulsory education and children below 18 years in mines, explosives and the hazardous occupations determined in the Factories Act, and to establish strict penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the adoption of the amendments to the CLPRA 1986, referred to above, would enable India to ratify both the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that inspections have been conducted at the central and state levels, but that no case of child labour was identified. While noting the Government’s efforts to strengthen its legislative framework for the protection of children, the Committee notes with regret that there have been no prosecutions or convictions under the CLPRA 1986. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective application in practice of the CLPRA 1986. In this regard, it asks the Government to provide information on the number of investigations and prosecutions, as well as the penalties imposed on perpetrators of forced labour of children. Please provide information on any developments concerning the adoption of the amendments to the CLPRA 1986, referred to above.

Compulsory labour of children in cotton production. In its previous comments concerning the observations received in 2010 from the Dakshini Rajastan Majdoor Union (DRMU) containing allegations of widespread compulsory labour practices in cotton production in India, affecting migrant workers and children, in the states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that manufacturing of cotton is not banned under the CLPRA 1986, but is covered by Part III of the corresponding regulations on the conditions of work of children. The Committee further noted the various legislative, rescue and rehabilitation measures implemented by the different state governments.

The Committee notes that, in its concluding observations of July 2014, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) reiterated its serious concern that, despite some efforts made by the State party, there are still a large number of children involved in economic exploitation, including child labour in hazardous conditions, such as mining, bonded labour in the informal sector and in agriculture (CRC/C/15/Add.228, CRC/C/IND/CO/3-4 and CRC/C/OPSC/IND/CO/1).

The Committee further notes the indication by the government of Gujarat that, as a result of bilateral meetings held with the bordering districts of the state of Rajasthan, check posts at suspected entry points of children migrating from Rajasthan have been established. These verifications are made by officers from the Labour and Employment Department two or three times during the three month cotton season, and children travelling with their families are sent back to their native place. Regular inspections are also carried out in the cotton growing fields. The Committee notes that the government of Andhra Pradesh has conducted several awareness-raising programmes, with the assistance of ILO–IPEC, in order to eliminate child labour in cotton production. As a result of the inspections conducted, 47 children were found working in cotton production in 2011–12. The Committee further notes that the government of Maharashtra held awareness-raising activities concerning the compulsory labour of children and that the task force established under the CLPRA 1986, composed by officers of the labour and women and child welfare departments, the police department and NGOs, have conducted 3,396 raids in suspected establishments leading to the arrest of 2,002 employers and the rescue of 5,321 children up to 31 March 2013. The Committee notes that no information has been provided on the compulsory labour of children in cotton production in Tamil Nadu. Further to its previous comments concerning the implementation of the National Child Labour Project (NCLP) scheme, under which child labourers were identified, rescued and enrolled in special schools before being mainstreamed into the formal education system, the Committee further notes the Government’s indication that until now 7,311 special schools are operating within the NCLP, which benefited 967,000 children, who were mainstreamed into the formal education system. The Committee takes due note of the measures taken by the Government and encourages it to pursue its efforts, in particular within the framework of the NCLP scheme, to ensure that children working in cotton production are not engaged in hazardous work in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and other states concerned. It requests the Government to provide information on the number of prosecutions initiated, convictions and penalties imposed. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of children rescued from forced labour in cotton production, and rehabilitated and socially integrated.

3. Culturally sanctioned practices involving sexual exploitation. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to a communication received in 2007 from the ITUC concerning a culturally sanctioned practice known as “devadasi”, under which lower caste girls were dedicated to local “deities” or objects of worship and once initiated as “devadasi” were sexually exploited by followers of the “deity” within the local community as they grew up. The Committee noted that the “devadasi” system constituted forced labour within the meaning of the Convention, since girls were dedicated as “devadasi” without their consent and were subsequently compelled to provide sexual services to the community under duress. The Committee also noted that several laws criminalize this practice and establish penalties of imprisonment of up to five years and a fine for those responsible for ceremonies and rituals of dedication, including the Karnataka Devadasis (Prohibition of Dedication) Act, 1982; the Maharashtra Devadasi Prohibition Act, 2005, and the Devadasi Prohibition Rules, 2008; and the Andhra Pradesh Devadasi (Prohibition of Dedication) Act, 1988. However, the Committee noted that, despite the prohibition, the “devadasi” system and its regional variations continue to exist in practice.

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance (No. 1) of 2014, which provides, inter alia, that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, performs or promotes dedicating a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe woman to a deity, idol, object of worship, temple or other religious institution as a “devadasi” or any other similar practice shall be punishable with a fine and imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years (section 3(i)(1)(k) of the Ordinance). The Committee further notes the updated information provided by the Government on the various rehabilitation programmes and measures being implemented in the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in order to assist ex-“devadasis” and their children, including awareness-raising activities, health camps, pension schemes, skills development and training programmes, loans to take up various income-generating activities, assignment of land and construction of houses. The Government adds that, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, 8,852 “devadasis” have been rehabilitated so far. The Committee further notes that the government of Andhra Pradesh has constituted a One-Man Commission to study the situation of “devadasi” women and that their report and recommendations have been submitted to the Government. The Committee also notes that the National Commission for Women convened consultations with women’s commissions of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and stressed the need to strengthen and effectively implement the law to tackle the “devadasi” system in the country, and asked the Government to make this report publicly accessible.

The Committee further notes that, in their concluding observations of July 2014, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the CRC expressed concern about the persistence of culturally sanctioned harmful practices such as, inter alia, the practice of “devadasi”, and the fact that the Government has not taken sufficient sustained and systematic action to modify or eliminate stereotypes and harmful practices (CEDAW/C/IND/CO/4-5 and CRC/C/OPSC/IND/CO/1). While noting the efforts made by the Government to legally ban the “devadasi” practice since the 1980s, the Committee notes with concern the persistence of this culturally sanctioned practice involving sexual exploitation. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring an end to the “devadasi” system in practice, including through enforcement of the legislation adopted in the different states. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions concerning this culturally sanctioned harmful practice involving sexual exploitation, as well as the specific penalties imposed, including copies of the relevant court decisions. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the report made by the One-Man Commission on the situation of “devadasi” women, specifying how the recommendations have been taken into account by the Government.

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