The essence of privatization and globalization policies is to exploit to the maximum extent, the surplus value of the proletariat and other toiling masses. But, this could not be easy, since there are hindrances or legal rights that the working class in its earlier historical phases achieved by waging several struggles. They are to be abrogated (some gradually, others immediately at one stroke). This programme has become an important aspect of the reforms being pushed through under the current onslaught.

There are several lacunae, of course, in the existing labour laws. Because of their class character, the managements and governments had showed indifference and negligence in the implementation of these laws. So, several Acts or some of their clauses have not been implemented and have remained only on paper. Several classes of workers have never come under the purview of these laws. Even those that came under the legal purview were not able to ensure implementation to a considerable extent. Yet, despite all these deficiencies, these were enacted as a result of struggles of workers.

Since 1991, when liberalisation policies commenced, managements and governments have been deliberately diluting the implementation of labour laws. The central and state governments have been instructing the labour machinery not to mind the implementation of labour laws and not to harass managements in the name of inspection.

The government has opened ‘Special Export Processing Zones’ or ‘Special Economic Zones’ in various parts of the country. Here managements are given open exemption from the implementation of labour laws. The working conditions of labourers at these places remind us of the condition of serfs. There is no right to form unions, no right to place any demands, no categorical limit for working hours. Leave alone the right to strike, they have no right to stage a protest even.

Managements want the same atmosphere to prevail throughout the country. And governments have been faithfully taking steps in that direction.

Trade unions, despite lapses and limitations, have been putting in efforts to make workers conscious about and to fight against privatization and globalization policies. So, the ruling classes have turned their attention on the right to form trade unions. In order to achieve what they wanted, they introduced amendments to the Trade Union Act of 1926, placed them before the parliament last year and got them approved. Earlier, according to this (non-amended) Act, 7 workers of any establishment could form a trade union, which could register itself under the provisions of the Act. According to the amended Act, 100 workers of an establishment or 10% of its workers – whichever is lower – should declare their membership in a union and then only the union would be registered. Even after registration, whenever there is a decrease of membership from the prescribed limit, the Registrar could cancel the registration of that union. Those who come forward to start a union have to face the harassment of the management and are to be ready for removal from service. This is our experience. Because of this reason, initially not many workers come forward to form a union. That was why, the Trade Union Act of 1926 provided for 7 workers to form and register their union. The government has made this amendment with the intention to limit the number of unions.

The unamended Trade Union Act provided that half of the members of the union executive could be outsiders. The present amendment provides only for one third of total or 5 external executive members – whichever is less. Highly educated, ably conversant litigants as they are, the employers want that the representation of the workers should be poor and ill equipped. Workers who are dependent on them for livelihood could represent their union, then it would be easy for the management to threaten and harass them to toe their line. Managements also do not want their workers to be part of a large consciousness or of general struggles of working class. The amendment is aimed at fulfilling such deep-rooted desire of the management to guillotine the tradition of outside leadership in trade unions, and to impose their rule on workers.

The central Cabinet has recently approved the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act. It is to be placed before the Parliament for its approval. In the 5th chapter of this Act, there are clauses pertaining to closure of factories, layoff, retrenchment of workers etc. In accordance with these articles of the Act, factories or establishments employing 100 or more workers should seek prior permission of the Government to close down, layoff or retrench its workers and the Government, before it gives such permission, should consult workers and unions. According to the proposed amendment adopted by the Union Cabinet, these provisions would apply only to factories where 1000 or more workers are employed. In our country, only one in a hundred factories employs more than 1000 workers. That means, hereafter 99% of factories would not come under the purview of this law, nor would 75% of the workers who work in such factories. The job protection of 75% of the Indian working class would be done away with. Employers of such factories would get the right to ‘hire and fire’ at will.

Another amendment to this Act pertains to the right to strike. According to the amendment, whenever there arises a dispute between management and workers, workers should inevitably attend the conciliation meeting convened by the labour department officials. Only after exhausting all legal avenues, workers could go on strike. Even then, two-thirds of the workers should vote in favour of strike in a ballot held for such purpose, and then only such strike would be legal. By the time all the process is over, precious time is lost and there would be no opportunity to resort to strike. It is a ploy to abrogate the workers’ right to strike and nothing else.

Another amendment that the managements cherished and the government intended, pertains to the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regularisation) Act. The objective of this amendment is to transform the Contract Labour Act, which is aimed at abolition of contract labour, into Contract Labour Regularisation and Extension Act. Even before the approval of the amendment, courts began giving judgements in favour of contract labour policy. The Supreme Court, reversing its earlier judgement, pronounced that there was no need to regularise the contract labour and there was no need for the principal employer to take responsibility of them. The government wants to achieve this objective through the amendment it proposes. The amendment makes provision to engage contract labour in any factory at places that do not come under key positions or key activity. The government has the right to define everything as non-key activity. Similarly, the principal employer need not be held responsible either for the payment of wages of contract labourers or the working conditions. When the amendment comes into force with these provisions, it is nothing but cremating the Contract Labour Act.

The IMF and World Bank have been demanding ‘liberalisation of labour market’ and ‘making labour market flexible’; the big business houses of the country earnestly campaign for the same objective and now the government wants to make it a reality by proposing the amendment. This amendment would take away even that little security of employment and protection to salary, which were enjoyed by the working class. In actual practice, even earlier the Act was given no value earlier in private and public sectors, both of which employed contract labour in lakhs.

The employers want another change – the introduction of Flexible Timings. The management argue that it is dictatorial to prescribe working hours and other things – like eight hour working day, prescribing rest timings in the working day, or prescribing the working hours in a week. They want that work week, working hours, rest – every thing should be decided by agreements between the management and workers, made from time to time. They also say that the rule forbidding women to work at night has lost its validity.

They want abrogation of all rules pertaining to working hours (particularly those prescribed in Factory Act) and restoration of the early days of capitalist system. Even now a twelve-hour working day is being covertly implemented in the country. Lakhs of power loom workers in Surat work for 12 hours a day in two shifts. Law, officials and the government consider it all non-existing and shut their eyes.

Workers who earn more than Rs. 2500 per month do not come under the purview of Bonus Act. By prescribing the maximum wage limit, the government has denied a majority of the organised working class the right to bonus. On the other hand, the managements demand the removal of the legal right to bonus. They also demand withdrawal of all legal facilities like EPF, ESI, gratuity etc. They oppose payment of double remuneration for overtime work. They demand curtailment of holidays. Though the government does not dare to abrogate all rights at a time, it has an agenda of withdrawing them one by one. This fact should never be lost sight of by the working class. We must fight to stall these evil attempts.

Different state governments as well have issued several notifications to enact laws abrogating the rights of workers. Last year, the government of Maharashtra tried to introduce an Industrial Relations bill in the Assembly for its approval. Trade unions stiffly opposed the bill. The government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification that government undertakings, cooperative bodies and corporations that incurred losses need not pay bonus to their employees. It recently issued another notification, in connection to RTC / coalmine workers’ strike, that 25% of the losses incurred because of strike should be recovered from the wages of the workers. Because of the severe protest of the workers, the order could not be implemented. Recently, the Tamil Nadu government enacted ‘Emergency Services Management Act’ – a black Act. It provides for three years imprisonment of workers who resort to strike and of their supporters, besides a fine of Rs. 5000, in the establishments declared as emergency services. The same punishment awaits those who refuse to work on overtime in emergency services.

Court Verdicts in Line with Liberalisation

In a class divided society, the courts as well serve only the cause of the haves. Presently our ruling classes have strategic aims of liberalisation, privatisation and globalization. So in consonance with these aims our legal system also conducts itself. The verdicts delivered by different High Courts and the Supreme Court in recent times prove the same fact.

The changes that our ruling classes cherish to bring about in labour laws have not yet been fully made, due to resistance of workers. So the courts give new interpretations to the laws, which are totally counterposed to past interpretations and deliver new judgements, which are totally opposed to past judgements. It is not a mere coincidence that managements make new demands, ruling classes support them and the courts deliver judgements in consonance with them.

Kerala High Court delivered a judgement declaring bandhs illegal. When an appeal went to the Supreme Court against the verdict of Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court verdict. In another judgement delivered on 15th June 2000, the Kerala High Court declared hartals too as illegal. Right to form unions, right to hold meetings, right to protest, right to strike – all these are basic rights of workers and people. When managements and government resort to atrocities and gross injustices, workers and people hold bandhs and hartals, which are forms of collective protests. Their prohibition amounts to suppression of people’s democratic right to protest the tyrannical measures of exploitative ruling classes.

When workers try to hold gate meetings, managements go to court and get orders prohibiting holding of meetings within a kilometre distance from the factory gate. When applied to for permission for street procession, the police refuse saying that it would cause law and order problem. They order that meetings, processions, demonstrations and public meetings should be held in the outskirts of the town, at distant places. For years the problems of workers remain unsolved. When they, vexed, resort to strikes, they are immediately declared illegal and proceedings begin to suppress the protest by severe police force. Let managements resort to lockouts or closure, evade payment of gratuity, eat away workers’ PF and ESI funds- the police treat them as honourable, respectable people. A phone call would be enough for bands of policemen to rush with their rifles to protect these criminals and suppress workers. The police and the government readily apply third degree methods and engineer lock-up deaths whenever managements make even false allegations against workers.

It is the daily experience of workers and other toiling people. So it is ridiculous for courts to declare bandhs and hartals as illegal.

When the postal employees had resorted to strike in the entire country, some people lodged a public interest litigation (PIL) that the strike is causing inconvenience to them. Responding to this, the Delhi High Court ordered the government to impose ESMA on the striking employees.

In Maharashtra, the hamalis who were on strike refused to unload from railway wagons, the goods of Tata Company. Tata’s TISCO petitioned the ‘Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Resolving Commission’ to endow compensation from the workers. The Commission ordered that hamalis should pay Rs. 9.96 lakhs to TISCO as compensation for the damage.

In the past, the Supreme Court delivered several judgements relating to ESI Act of 1948. According to it, the managements have to pay compensation if a worker is injured in an accident while coming to the factory from his house and vice versa. In several of its judgements also, the Supreme Court ordered compensation in contexts when a worker goes to another place on deputation and meets with an accident. In the other cases under Workmen’s Compensation Act also, the Supreme Court delivered similar judgements. But recently, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement that allowed compensation only when the accident occurs in the premises of the factory.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ordered Air India to automatically regularise contract workers. The same Supreme Court delivered a judgement, on 30th August 2001, when the Steel Authority of India Ltd. approached it challenging a Calcutta High Court verdict, that there was no need for SAIL to regularise the contract workers.

In Karnataka, the President of a trade union appealed against an immoral Chairman of a Corporation to the governor and released the appeal to the press. For that sin, the management of that Corporation terminated him from service. This termination was supported by the Karnataka High Court. It is an act that suppresses the workers’ right to expression.

Some of the big industries in Delhi wanted to close down their factories and sell away the vast lands of the factories at exorbitant rates with the sole motive of profit making. For this, the labour laws became obstacles for them. Similarly, foreign multinational organisations and the big domestic capitalists produced and sold in markets cheaply, conspiring to edge out from Delhi or to force closure of thousands of small industries producing the same goods and competing with them. Then a PIL was submitted in the Supreme Court urging closure of several industries in the name of atmospheric pollution in Delhi. The Supreme Court responded to the case and ordered 39,000 industries, which supposedly polluted atmosphere and were located near habitats, either to close down their shutters or shift to the outskirts of the city. The Supreme Court did not apply its mind even for a single minute to think of the plight of lakhs of workers that were employed there and their families. It betrays the attitude of the Supreme Court. When lakhs of workers and thousands of proprietors of small industries protested against the verdict on a large scale, the Supreme Court and the government which has implemented the verdict, rescinded, but not before hundreds of closures had been affected.

Nellimarla Jute Mill in Andhra Pradesh illegally resorted to lock out. The management argued that outside leadership had no right to represent the workers and the Andhra Pradesh High Court gave its verdict in 1994, upholding the right of workers to have outside leadership and the leadership’s right to represent the workers. The same High Court delivered a judgement recently that the outside leadership had no right either to speak or participate in discussion with either management directly or with the government.

We should not entertain any illusion that courts of this class divided society come to the rescue of working class and toiling people. Workers should be widely enlightened on the class character of the courts and their biased verdicts. We have to bring home to workers that working class can achieve its goals only through direct class struggles.

(The author of the above article is General Secretary of Indian Federation of Trade Unions)