Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14) - India (RATIFICATION: 1923)

CMNT_TITLE

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee recalls its previous comment regarding the entitlement to weekly rest for workers employed in factories with less than ten employees. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 85(1)(i) of the Factories Act, 1948, which provides that a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to any place wherein a manufacturing process is carried on, notwithstanding that the number of persons employed is less than ten. However, as the provision stands, it is at the discretion of the state governments to make use of the permissive provision of section 85(1), and extend the coverage of the weekly rest provisions to factories employing less than ten employees. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify whether any notifications under section 85 have so far been gazetted and if not, to consider appropriate measures to ensure that weekly rest is granted to all factory employees irrespective of the number of employees. The Committee understands that the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE), through an Expert Committee, has recently proposed amendments to the Factories Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the current status of the proposed amendments to the Factories Act, and to keep the Office informed of any developments that might have an impact on the workers’ entitlement to weekly rest.

Articles 4 and 5. Total or partial exceptions – Compensatory rest. The Committee notes the list of the state governments that allow for compensatory rest under section 53 of the Factories Act. The Committee also notes that under Section 53(1) of the Factories Act, where workers are deprived of any of their weekly holiday, they shall be allowed, within the calendar month in which the rest periods were due to them, or within the two calendar months next after that month, substituted holidays equal to the number of holidays so lost. The Committee wishes to recall, in this respect, that according to the spirit of the Convention, workers should enjoy a minimum period of rest and leisure at regular weekly, or, in any event, reasonably short, intervals. In this connection, it refers to paragraph 3 of the Weekly rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), which indicates that persons to whom special weekly rest schemes apply should not work for more than three weeks without receiving the rest periods to which they are entitled. The Committee therefore requests the Government to re-examine the appropriateness of granting accumulated weekly rest – even on an exceptional basis – once every three months and consider the possibility of amending the relevant provision of the Factories Act accordingly.

CMNT_TITLE

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Convention continues to be given effect through the Factories Act, 1948. It would appreciate receiving additional explanations as to how weekly rest is ensured for workers employed in factories with less than ten employees, which are excluded from the scope of application of the Factories Act. In addition, the Committee notes that more recent legislation, such as section 28(1) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, provides that the appropriate Government may by rules provide for a day of weekly rest for building workers who are not covered by the Factories Act or the Mines Act, 1952 (a similar provision is found in section 19(1) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, as amended). It therefore asks the Government to specify whether any such rules have been issued and, if not, to explain how it is ensured that these workers enjoy, like all other workers, a period of at least 24 consecutive hours of rest every week, as prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention.

Article 5. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that, under section 53(2) of the Factories Act, the State Government may prescribe the manner in which compensatory holidays provided for in section 53(1) shall be allowed. It requests the Government to indicate whether any specific rules have so far been adopted in this regard and, if so, to transmit a copy. Moreover, the Committee notes that, under section 28(1)(c) of the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, building workers performing work on the weekly rest day are entitled to extra pay at the overtime rate. It recalls that the Convention requires compensatory rest to be granted, as far as possible, in the case of suspension or diminution of the weekly rest period, irrespective of any monetary compensation. It accordingly requests the Government to consider favourably the adoption of appropriate measures to this end.

Article 6. List of exceptions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, a list of all the exceptions currently authorized to the general weekly rest scheme (such as exempting rules and orders provided for in sections 64 and 65 of the Factories Act, and in section 39 of the Mines Act), and also provide information on their practical implementation (types of establishment to which exemptions are granted, period of exemptions granted, etc.).

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. As the Committee has not received for a number of years any general information on the practical application of the Convention, it asks the Government to provide up to date and documented information in this regard, including, for instance, statistics on the approximate number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, labour inspection results showing the number of infringements of the weekly rest legislation observed and sanctions imposed, copies of relevant collective agreements containing clauses on weekly rest, etc. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would transmit a copy of the observations made by the workers’ organization Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh which were not attached to its last report.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that, based on the conclusions and proposals of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body has decided that the ratification of up to date Conventions, including the Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 (No. 14), and the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Convention, 1957 (No. 106), should be encouraged because these instruments continue to respond to current needs (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 17–18). The Committee accordingly invites the Government to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 106 and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken or envisaged in this respect.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has taken note of the observations made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) on the application of the Convention, and the comments on these observations communicated by the Government.

In its observations the CITU raises the following questions:

1.the applicability of the Convention (a) to air transport, which is not mentioned in Article 1(d) of the Convention and (b) to railway workers excluded from the provisions of the Convention by virtue of Article 1, paragraph 2, which provides for the application of the special national exceptions regarding India, contained in Article 10 of the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1);

2.the lack of provisions on weekly rest in the Dock Labourers Act, 1934, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act) Act, 1970 and the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976;

3.the absence of a list of exceptions from weekly rest provided for in Article 6 and made under Articles 3 and 4 and the lack of consultation of organised labour in this respect.

As concerns the scope of the Convention and its application to India, the Committee notes that (a) Article 1(1) of Convention No. 14 gives a definition of "industrial undertaking" which does not include transport by air and (b) that, as far as railway workers are concerned, by virtue of the national exeptions referred to above, it is up to the competent national authority in India to determine in which branches of railway work the principle of weekly rest should apply. However, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for the Government of India to extend the provisions of the Convention to all workers employed in all industrial undertakings.

Concerning the CITU's reference to various Acts which contain no provision on weekly rest, the Committee notes the Government's statement that as the objectives of the different labour laws may differ, these texts should be viewed in connection with the provisions regarding the weekly day of rest contained in other Acts in force such as the Factories Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the State Shops and Establishments Act, etc.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to communicate an updated list of exceptions from the provisions on weekly rest and to indicate whether the organisation of employers and workers concerned were consulted in establishing these exceptions.