Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee regrets that the Government's report has not been received. The Committee notes, however, the written and oral information supplied by a Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1992 and the discussion that took place in this respect.

1. Refusal of Government of Maharashtra to negotiate with muster assistants employed through the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The Hind Mazdoor Sabha Union (HMS) made comments regarding the status of muster assistants (workers that provide water or medical facilities at work sites) who are employed through the state Government's Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). According to these comments, the Government issued a notification in 1987 providing that muster assistants were not covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Unions Act, 1926. When that notification was struck down by the Bombay High Court the state Government still refused to negotiate.

The Government stated that the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) was started by the Government of Maharashtra in 1972 to provide productive employment in rural areas and in certain municipal councils. The Government pointed out that this work is, in essence, a public works programme in that it involves an employment guarantee of limited duration by the Government (for each job assignment). The Government stated that these labour laws do not apply to muster assistants because their work cannot be equated with normal employment.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the state Government of Maharashtra has taken positive action in the spirit of the Convention by passing legislation, namely the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, to improve employment possibilities of rural workers. The Committee also notes that the state Government apparently recognizes the rights of the muster assistants to organize; the state Government is not alleged to have impeded the establishment of the union, and at the outset responded favourably to its grievances.

The Committee considers, however, that by its recent refusal to negotiate with the muster assistants the Government has not fully observed the Convention. Given that muster assistants are persons engaged in related occupations in a rural area covered by Article 2 of the Convention, the Government should take steps to observe the principles stated in Article 6, which include promoting "the widest possible understanding of the need to further the development of rural workers' organizations and of the contribution they can make to improving employment opportunities and general conditions of work and life in rural areas as well as to increasing the national income and achieving a better distribution thereof".

2. Alleged inadequate pay and service conditions of female workers employed in the state Government's "Integrated Child Development Scheme". The Hind Mazdoor Sabha Union (HMS) comments criticized the conditions of employment of more than 300,000 female workers in the state Government programme called the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The union asserts that in light of the Convention, the Government's pay and services provisions constitute unfair labour practices.

The Government states that the ICDS is a centrally sponsored scheme that pays a "small honorarium and not any salary as such" to women from local villages who run the local child care centres. The Government considers that these women have the constitutional right to form a union but are not covered in any way under the present Convention because they are not "rural workers" as defined in the Convention.

The Committee considers that, like muster assistants in the state programme, the ICDS participants are rural workers as defined by the "related occupations" provision under the Convention.

The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention states that "the term 'rural workers' means any person engaged in agriculture, handicrafts or a related occupation in a rural area, whether as a wage-earner or, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, as a self-employed person such as a tenant, sharecropper or small owner-occupier".

It therefore considers that the Government should encourage the formation of workers' organizations as well as negotiate and consult with the organizations.

The Committee would ask the Government to provide more information respecting the steps taken to facilitate the establishment and growth, on a voluntary basis, of strong and independent organizations of these workers, without discrimination, as stated in Article 4.

3. Working conditions and wages of forest and brick-making workers. The Committee recalls the comments of the Hind Mazdoor Sabha Union (HMS) stating that the conditions of forest and brick workers are equivalent to that of bonded labour and that the state Government has failed to help and encourage the organization of these workers.

The Government indicates that these workers cannot be given permanent employment as there is not sufficient work, but points out that the following acts have been extended to them: the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; the Inter-State Migrant Labour Act, 1979; and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Government adds that it has created extensive machinery to implement these acts, but it acknowledges that enforcement has not been satisfactorily managed due to the lack of adequate labour inspection machinery. The Government states that it is in the process of improving this machinery.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that it is in the process of improving the enforcement machinery of laws covering rural workers including forest and brick-making workers. Just as for the muster assistants and the ICDS female workers, the Committee would ask the Government to ensure that the Convention is fully applied to these workers.