Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 1950)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 2019)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of career military servicemen to terminate their service. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that officers of the regular force or regular force reserve do not have the right to resign their commission, but may be allowed by the President to do so, under section 11 of the Air Force Act, 1949, the Navy Act, 1950, and the Army Act, 1949. The Committee also noted that, under section 10, every officer shall hold his appointment "during the President’s pleasure". Referring to paragraphs 33 and 67-73 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that, under the Convention, career military servicemen should not be denied the right to leave the service, in time of peace, either at certain reasonable intervals or by means of notice of reasonable length, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service.

The Government indicates in its report that the matter has been referred to the authorities concerned and that, after nearly two decades of civil war, the Government and the militants have entered into a peace process and the problem will have to be dealt with in that light. The Committee therefore hopes that, in its next report, the Government will be able to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to bring the statutory provisions governing the resignation of officers in time of peace into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Article 2(2)(c). Prison labour. The Committee previously noted from the Government’s reply to its 1998 general observation that there were no private prisons in the country, but that a Work Release Scheme (in operation since 1974) allowed the employment of prisoners outside prison premises in two private sector institutions, and that prisoners were employed inside and outside the prisons under private contractors for the purpose of constructing prison buildings and for related maintenance work. The Committee also noted the Government’s indications concerning prisoners’ consent, wages and conditions of work. It again requests the Government to supply copies of agreements concluded by prison authorities with private contractors involving the employment of prisoners and of the form of consent to be signed by the prisoners.