Definitive Report - REPORT_NO253, November 1987

1. 80. In a communication dated 9 October 1986, the Trade Unions Action Committee (TUAC) - representing the following seven trade union federations: Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions, All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions, National Labour Federation of Pakistan, Pakistan Trade Union Federation, Pakistan Central Federation of Trade Unions, Pakistan Labour Organisation and United Workers' Federation - presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Pakistan. It supplied additional information in a communication dated 25 November 1986.
2. 81. The Committee adjourned its examination of the case on several occasions while awaiting receipt of the Government's reply. At its May 1987 meeting (see 251st Report, para. 13, approved by the Governing Body at its 236th Session), the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government for its observations and recalled that it would present a report on this case even if these were not received in time for the Committee's next meeting. To date no reply on this case has been received from the Government.
3. 82. Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); it has not ratified the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 83. In the TUAC's communication of 9 October 1986, it alleges that the
   • Government has openly violated Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 since the imposition
   • of martial law in July 1977, particularly through its ban on strikes, denial
   • of collective bargaining and administrative and legislative measures.
2. 84. Firstly, the TUAC alleges that workers employed in the following
   • institutions have been denied the right to organise in trade unions: Pakistan
   • International Airlines Corporation (PIAC); Pakistan Security Printing
   • Corporation; Security Papers Limited; Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation;
   • Pakistan Television Corporation; all hospitals and institutions maintained for
   • the care of the sick; all educational institutions; particular categories of
   • workers in railways, post and telegraph, oil and gas wells and refineries;
   • Civil Aviation Authority; all persons employed by Federal or Provincial
   • Government; Punjab Road Transport Corporation; Sind Road Transport
   • Corporation; Karachi Transport Corporation; all workers employed in export
   • processing zones. All these companies, except a few oil and gas corporations,
   • are public sector undertakings.
3. 85. Secondly, according to the TUAC, workers employed in the nationalised
   • banks and financial institutions, life insurance companies, oil refineries,
   • gas and electricity companies have been denied the right to bargain
   • collectively. For the first three types of institutions, an amendment to the
   • Industrial Relations Ordinance (s. 38A) has been used to impose awards handed
   • down by a government-appointed wage commission; in the oil, gas and
   • electricity establishments, the Government has used the Essential Service
   • (Maintenance) Act to allow a one-man tribunal to set the conditions of
   • employment.
4. 86. These measures, states the complainant, also violate s. 17 of the
   • Pakistan Constitution which states that: "Every citizen shall have the right
   • to form associations or unions subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed
   • by law in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order
   • or morality".
5. 87. The TUAC states that the national trade union confederations, both
   • individually and collectively, have sought solutions to this state of affairs
   • before all fora, including the federal and provisional ministries, departments
   • of labour and tripartite bodies without any tangible outcome. It also placed
   • its case before the ILO Sectoral Review Mission which visited Pakistan in
     • July-August 1986.
   • 88. In its letter of 25 November 1986, the complainant outlines the history
   • of labour legislation in Pakistan since independence in 1947 and stresses the
   • Government's silence in face of continued criticism of the situation by
   • workers and their organisations. It claims that the current legislation is in
   • violation of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 154.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 89. The Committee would first express its profound regret that, in spite of
   • the seriousness of the allegations made in this case and the various requests
   • made to the Government to transmit its observations thereon, the Government
   • has not done so. In these circumstances, and before examining the substance of
   • the case, the Committee considers it necessary to recall the considerations it
   • set out in its First Report (para. 31), namely that the purpose of the
   • procedure for the examination of allegations of violation of freedom of
   • association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact,
   • and that if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable
   • accusations, governments should in turn recognise the importance of
   • formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations
   • brought against them.
2. 90. The Committee observes that this case involves allegations of
   • incompatibility between martial law, the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969,
   • as amended, and the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, with Article 2 of
   • Convention No. 87 and Article 4 of Convention No. 98. This is not the first
   • time that the Committee has been called on to consider Pakistan's industrial
   • relations legislation and the Committee of Experts on the Application of
   • Conventions and Recommendations has been commenting on this legislation for
   • many years, most recently in observations in March 1987 which were the basis
   • of a discussion in the Committee on the Application of Conventions and
   • Recommendations, at the 73rd Session of the International Labour Conference
   • (June 1987).
3. 91. The Committee notes that according to the information given at the
   • International Labour Conference, martial law was lifted in Pakistan on 31
   • December 1985.
4. 92. On the first issue in the present case (prohibition of the right to form
   • unions of employees in several government bodies), the Committee notes that
   • the lifting of martial law as of January 1986 ought to have facilitated the
     • re-establishment and formation of trade unions by all categories of workers
   • covered by Convention No. 87. It appears, however, from the complainant's
   • second communication, dated November 1986, that the situation has not changed.
   • The Committee would accordingly recall the importance it attaches to Article 2
   • of Convention No. 87 which provides that workers without distinction
   • whatsoever shall have the right to establish organisations of their own
   • choosing. On several occasions (see, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 965
   • (Malaysia), para. 197) the Committee has stated that this Article is designed
   • to give expression to the principle of non-discrimination in trade union
   • matters, and the words "without distinction whatsoever" mean that freedom of
   • association should be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind based on
   • occupation, sex, colour, race, beliefs, nationality, political opinion, etc.,
   • not only to workers in the private sector of the economy but also to civil
   • servants and public service employees in general.
5. 93. The Committee trusts that, now that there is no legislative impediment to
   • the formation of public employee organisations, such workers will be able, in
   • practice, if they so wish, to establish organisations of their own choosing to
   • represent their occupational interests.
6. 94. As regards the right to organise of workers employed in export processing
   • zones, the Committee notes that the Export Processing Zones (Control of
   • Employment) Rules, 1982, do not limit this right. On the other hand, the Rules
   • do prohibit strikes in such zones and this has been criticised by the
   • Committee of Experts since 1983.
7. 95. Thirdly, the situation of employees of the Pakistan International
   • Airlines Corporation (PIAC), now deemed to be civil servants by virtue of an
   • amendment to the PIAC Act (and thus denied the right to form trade unions and
   • participate in trade union activities) has been thoroughly examined by the
   • Committee at its November 1986 meeting (see Case No. 1332, 246th Report,
   • paras. 167 to 183). It accordingly would refer the Government to its
   • conclusions reached at that time, which read as follows:
     • a) The Committee considers that the amendment to the Pakistan International
   • Airlines Corporation Act, which deems all PIAC employees to be state employees
   • and, as a result, denies them the right to form unions or carry out union
   • activities, violates Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87.
     • b) The Commmittee again urges the Government to initiate appropriate action
   • to amend the PIAC Act so as to restore to the workers concerned the right to
   • establish and join organisations of their own choosing which can function
   • freely to defend and promote their members' occupational interests.
8. 96. As regards the second allegation (restrictions on collective bargaining
   • in certain public sector enterprises), the Committee notes that the very
   • provision raised by the complainant (s. 38A of the Industrial Relations
   • Ordinance) has been specifically criticised by the Committee of Experts. The
   • present Committee endorses the Experts' comments thereon, drawing the
   • Government's attention to Article 4 of Convention No. 98 according to which
   • workers' organisations should be able to negotiate their wages and other terms
   • and conditions of employment with the employers and their organisations. It
   • recalls that employees of the types of institutions listed in s. 38A of the
   • Industrial Relations Ordinance do not fall within the category of employees
   • excluded from Convention No. 98 by virtue of its Article 6 and thus insists on
   • the right of their organisations to negotiate their terms and conditions of
   • employment with the employers in the banks, financial institutions and
   • insurance companies in question.
9. 97. As regards the alleged restriction on collective bargaining in oil, gas
   • and electricity undertakings by virtue of the Essential Services (Maintenance)
   • Act, 1952, the Committee notes that certain aspects of this Act have already
   • been thoroughly examined in the past (see Case No. 1175, 238th Report, paras.
10. 173 to 190, approved by the Governing Body in Feb.-Mar. 1985). At that time
    • the Government argued that the Act continued to apply to certain sectors of
    • the economy because of their essential character (e.g. generation of
    • electricity by the Water and Power Development Authority, WAPDA). The
    • Committee endorses its earlier conclusions and would stress that Convention
11. No. 98 and, in particular, its provisions concerning collective bargaining
    • applies to all workers and workers' organisations except those public servants
    • engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6) and the armed forces
    • and the police (Article 5).
12. 98. Lastly, the complainant refers to a ban on strikes which the Committee of
    • Experts has considered under sections 32 and 33 of the Industrial Relations
    • Ordinance and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone Rules. The present
    • Committee supports the Experts' opinion that the list of services declared to
    • be public utility services in which strikes can be prohibited (s. 33) is too
    • broad; it likewise endorses the Experts' insistence on the importance of
    • workers in export processing zones - despite the economic arguments often put
    • forward - like other workers without distinction whatsoever, enjoying the
    • trade union rights provided for by the freedom of association Conventions.
13. 99. The Committee refers this case as a whole to the Committee of Experts for
    • ongoing examination under Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.