Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2014, publiée 104ème session CIT (2015)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information concerning the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, under which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed:

-section 124A (bringing the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it);
-sections 141–143 (unlawful assemblies); section 145, read in conjunction with sections 141 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (No. V of 1898) (joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly which has been ordered to disperse);
-section 151, read in conjunction with section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (joining or continuing any assembly of five or more people which is likely to cause a disturbance of public peace and has been ordered to disperse);
-section 153 (promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens);
-section 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity).

The Committee recalled that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Since opinions and views opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, if such meetings and assemblies are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, such provisions also come within the scope of the Convention.

In this connection, the Committee observes that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to raise questions about their conformity with the Convention. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code in practice, supplying sample copies of relevant decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory prison labour under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act:

-Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, sections 5(2)(h) and (i), 6(3) and 13(1) (prohibiting people employed or engaged in “essential work” from leaving their work or absenting themselves from duty or slowing down or otherwise impeding their output; essential work being defined in section 2(3) as any work relating to the manufacture, production, maintenance or repair of arms, ammunition and equipment or other supplies and any other work which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be essential work for the purposes of this Ordinance);
-Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, section 50 (penalties applicable to postal employees who withdraw from their duties without previous notice, in writing, of one month).

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, has been promulgated during an exceptional period of war and therefore has no connection with the current Labour Act of 2006. The Government also reiterates its statement that the provisions in the Post Office Act, 1898, are not related to employment relationships, but established to improve the administrative system. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out that the above provisions allow for the imposition of compulsory prison labour as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee considers that such breaches may be made punishable by other kinds of sanctions (for example, fines or other punishment not involving compulsory labour), which lie outside the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, and of the Post Office Act, 1898, so that it can assess to what extent these provisions are compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance (No. XII of 1957), which prohibits certain strikes. The Committee pointed out that such a prohibition, if enforceable with sanctions involving an obligation to work, is incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the above Ordinance has not been repealed. The Government also indicated that the provisions in the 1957 Ordinance are not related to employment relationships, and were adopted with a view to improving the administrative system.

Referring also to its observation addressed to the Government, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information on this point. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure, in accordance with the Convention, that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee previously referred to sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963), under which the Government may prohibit strikes by employees of the Government or of a local authority in the interest of public order. The Committee observed that violations of such provisions are punishable with rigorous imprisonment, involving an obligation to work. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.