Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Pakistan (Ratification: 1960)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2002, Publication: 90th ILC session (2002)

A Government representative said that the Committee's deliberations over the years had provided effective guidance to member States in the implementation of international labour standards and that he therefore welcomed dialogue with the Committee.

He said that Pakistan had launched a far-reaching agenda of labour reforms, resulting in major reforms in labour legislation aimed at making the public sector, and particularly government institutions, more responsive to the needs of the poor and of workers. Following tripartite consultation, the consolidation of over 72 existing labour laws into six broad categories would shortly be approved. The six categories were industrial relations, wages, employment conditions, human resource development, labour welfare and the social safety net, and occupational safety and health. A Labour Advisory Board had recently been established to act as an apex body for tripartite consultations. Bilateralism and social dialogue were being promoted through the establishment of the Workers-Employers Bipartite Council of Pakistan (WEBCOP). The Government fully supported the initiative by employers and workers to establish provincial chapters of WEBCOP to provide a forum for permanent dialogue. The measures taken included raising the monthly minimum wage for unskilled workers to 2,500 rupees, improving maternity benefits, doubling compensation for workers in the event of death or serious injury, and increasing the old-age pension for industrial workers. A national action plan and policy were being pursued in partnership with the ILO for the elimination of child labour, and a national action plan and policy were being formulated for the abolition of bonded labour. In July 2001, a tripartite labour conference had been convened after a lapse of 13 years. The conference, inaugurated by the President of Pakistan, had been attended by workers, employers and government representatives. Its recommendations, which covered almost all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, were at different stages of implementation. He emphasized that the aim of these structural changes was to bring about a reform in the social sector, despite the current domestic and external constraints.

Turning to the points raised by the Committee of Experts, he said that the purpose of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, was to ensure the uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public. Its application had been extremely restrictive and, while it remained on the books, no individual had been forced to work without his or her consent. Indeed, industrial relations in Pakistan were exemplary and there had not been any strikes or lockouts for the past five years. In view of the comments by the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Laws, it had been decided to review the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. A new Ordinance had been submitted for approval by the Cabinet, after obtaining the consent of both workers and employers, and would in large part address the concerns of the Committee of Experts. However, this was only one aspect of the solution that was being pursued. As he had informed the Committee the previous year, most of the public sector organizations which came under the Essential Services Act were undergoing privatization, including WAPDA and the telecommunications and oil and gas sectors. The Essential Services Act would no longer be applicable when the respective organizations had been fully privatized.

With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the West Pakistan Press and Publication Ordinance, 1963, he affirmed that the press in his country was completely free. The Ordinance had lapsed and no such law was in force. He therefore requested the Committee of Experts to withdraw its observations on this matter.

With regard to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, he assured the Committee that their application was extremely restrictive and that conviction under the Acts was only after due process and in conformity with his country's international obligations, including those deriving from the Convention. He emphasized that his country was passing through extraordinary times, particularly since the events of 11 September. His country was in the forefront of the fight against terrorism and faced very difficult political circumstances, in a particularly difficult political environment in the region. While noting the matters raised by the Committee of Experts, he expressed the opinion that, under the present circumstances, any change to the existing laws might not be feasible, particularly those related to the security of the country.

Turning to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Penal Code, he reaffirmed the commitment of his country to the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with both Islam and his country's international obligations. All citizens of Pakistan were equal before the law and the Constitution of Pakistan upheld and guaranteed the fundamental rights of minorities, who constituted some 4 per cent of its population, and who were free to profess and practise their religion and culture.

In conclusion, he reaffirmed that, despite multidimensional challenges, his Government was making every effort to bring about the necessary changes. He would therefore welcome any constructive recommendations that it might make.

The Employer members recalled that the case had been discussed by the Committee on 12 occasions since 1981, most recently in 1999. On some of those occasions the Government representative had not been so forthcoming as he appeared to be today. The report of the Committee of Experts on this case covered six main issues and the Employer members appreciated that it was not possible to cover them all in any depth in a short period. With regard to two of these issues, namely the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Employer members believed that it was necessary to take into account the contemporary geopolitical realities facing the country, which were giving rise to evident difficulties in terms of basic governance, even with regard to one of the fundamental workplace rights, as set out in the Convention. It was not possible to apply identical solutions under all conditions and all that the Committee should do in the present situation was to urge the Government to make every effort to improve the situation as soon as possible.

With regard to the Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act, the Employer members believed that the comments by the Committee of Experts did not contain sufficient information for the Committee to engage in an in-depth examination of the issues. They therefore called upon the Committee to request the Government to provide detailed information on all the matters raised by the Committee of Experts in a timely manner, so that the Committee could base its future examination of the case on a fuller assessment of the current situation. For example, the Government representative had referred to the reorganization and amendment of labour and employment legislation and of the renewal of tripartite dialogue at the national level. The Committee did not at present have any way of assessing how valid these developments were. Nor was it entirely clear to the Employer members whether the Committee of Experts in practice had a clear understanding of the issues involved in each of the points that it had raised, and whether the situation as described by the Committee of Experts was indeed the situation at the present time. The Employer members therefore encouraged the Government to take measures in each of the areas of concern raised by the Committee of Experts with a view of bringing its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker members agreed that this case was very familiar to the Committee. In the interest of saving time, they would not examine in depth all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, but referred to their previous statements on the case. In addition, any significant new developments would be covered by the Worker member of Pakistan. The Government representative had provided information on a number of new developments in the country. The Committee would have to wait until the Committee of Experts had examined all the relevant information. If indeed genuine tripartite dialogue was being promoted and encouraged, this would be very important and useful for the country's future economic and social progress. Nevertheless, the Worker members' knowledge of the case meant that they retained certain doubts as to whether the process of tripartism in the country was really genuine. Indeed, it was strange to refer to tripartite dialogue when the essential conditions for free trade union activities in the country were not present. As indicated by the Employer members, the conclusions of the Committee should encourage the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention, but should at the same time be firm and sharp in recalling the problems which remained.

The Worker member of Pakistan thanked the Government representative for the information provided on recent developments in his country, including the holding of the national tripartite conference and the codification of labour laws. He agreed that his country was facing a difficult situation, with volatile northern and eastern borders, and was heavily involved in the international alliance against terrorism. He noted the undertaking by the Government representative to take action to give effect to the comments of the Committee of Experts and the national tripartite conference, and called for such action to be taken as soon as possible.

He recalled the comments made by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the very broad definition of essential services used by the Government which covered certain services, such as railways which were not accepted as essential services in the definition used by the ILO's supervisory bodies. The Government representative had suggested that the problem of the restrictions placed on trade union action in these services would be resolved following their privatization. However, he emphasized the importance of the workers in the services involved benefiting from their full rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining before any privatization, so that the necessary protective measures could be taken. A large number of workers would be affected by the proposed privatizations, in particular Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, Telecommunication, Railway, Banks, Oil and Gas, etc., and it was essential to provide them with an effective safety net. Yet, the management in the telecommunications and railway industries and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation in particular had been making use of the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act to prevent workers from presenting their legitimate demands, without holding any type of social dialogue with the staff. In particular, he referred to workers who had gone on strike and been arrested in Quetta and called for their immediate release as a demonstration of the sense of responsibility and the good will to which the Government representative had been referring. He urged the Government to provide an independent and impartial machinery for adjudication of their industrial disputes to workers engaged in essential services in strict sense as defined by the Committee of Experts. He also demanded to repeal section 2/A Civil Service Tribunal Act (Amendment) 1998 which debarred from approaching the Labour Court or National Industrial Relation Commission the workers engaged in declared essential services and other public sector organisations. He called upon the Government to seek the technical assistance of the ILO in order to help in the implementation of the required measures to remedy the situation. He reaffirmed that the social partners had an essential role to play in social development and that a policy of democratic participation and dialogue would provide an essential basis for improving compliance with the Convention, thereby raising the well-being of the workers.

The Worker member of Colombia indicated that on several occasions he had had an opportunity to discuss with the representatives of the Government of Pakistan the serious violations of this Convention, and of other fundamental ILO Conventions on, among other matters, child labour, slavery and bonded labour, the unacceptable conditions of workers in the merchant navy and the restrictions on the right to strike. The Workers still had reservations concerning the real progress made. The Committee of Experts had again expressed its concern with the manner in which the Government restricted workers' rights, by having recourse, among other methods, to the inclusion in essential services of the activities which, in reality, did not deserve such a classification, such as the Ghazi Barotha hydro power project. The workers of Pakistan were also concerned with the limitations on the freedom of the press which made any democratic discussion difficult. He called on the Government to guarantee the rights of the population in general and those of workers in particular, and not to forget that words blew away with the wind, but that promises had to be kept.

The Worker member of Singapore directed her comments in particular at the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, which contravened the Convention in various ways. While noting the information provided concerning the review of legislation in the country, she recalled that Article 1(b) and (c) of the Convention was clear and specific in prohibiting the use of forced or compulsory labour for purposes of economic development or as a means of labour discipline. In other words, it enshrined the right of individuals to decide whether or not to work, and for whom and under what conditions they would do so. This right was so sacrosanct that economic growth alone did not constitute sufficient justification for its denial to anyone. Nor should forced labour be used as an instrument to suppress the legitimate exercise of trade union and workers' rights through the imposition of the obligation to work in the case of labour disputes. The basis for this principle was evidently to prevent oppression and to recognize that workers were not commodities, but had dignity and self-respect which required protection. In this respect, the provisions of the Act which prevented workers from leaving employment without the approval of their employers was oppressive and unreasonable. It opened the door to serious abuse and forced people to work against their will.

With regard to the right to strike, the provisions of the Convention were also clear that the classification of a particular service as essential was not in itself sufficient to deprive workers of their right to strike or to have access to adjudication machinery. For a service to be regarded as essential under the Convention, and thereby justify the imposition of restrictions, it had to be such that its disruption would cause actual danger to life or health. The Government's decision to lift the ban on strikes in WAPDA was therefore welcome, although insufficient since the ban on strikes continued to be imposed in a number of other public utilities which were not essential under the definition relating to the Convention. Furthermore, it was no relief to workers in those services to know that following privatization they would be able to take industrial action, when such action was required before privatization. She therefore urged the Government to remove the restrictions on strikes and to restore the right of workers to terminate their contracts of employment freely. She suggested that the Government should call upon the technical assistance of the ILO to take the necessary measures in this respect.

The Employer member of India expressed strong opposition to situations of forced labour wherever they occurred. Violations of this fundamental Convention needed to be taken seriously. However, he expressed concern that the term "forced labour", which had a specific connotation, was being misinterpreted. He said that the situation in developing countries, such as Pakistan, needed to be considered in relation to the actual conditions in those countries. He believed that the Committee of Experts had not achieved a full understanding of the real situation in this case. The Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, prohibited employees from leaving their place of employment or abstaining from work in a concerted manner in essential services which were vital in the national interest. Workers going on strike or abstaining from work in such services were liable to serious penalties. It was of great importance in developing countries for the government to safeguard the continued provision of essential services, such as power supply, railways, telecommunications, water and food on an uninterrupted basis. Regulations needed to be adopted to this effect and the above Act should be viewed as a measure which complied with this duty of the Government. It would be a misinterpretation and distortion of the spirit of the Convention to interpret such regulatory mechanisms as involving compulsory or forced labour. The provision of a special mechanism in the law to deal with industrial disputes in essential services through their submission to an independent judicial authority to provide justice to the workers should be considered adequate positive action. Moreover, the political affiliations of trade unions in many developing countries meant that strikes were often called with political motives. It should also be recalled that strikes and work stoppages in essential services could lead to violence and damage to plant and machinery, as well as risks to life. In conclusion, he reaffirmed that the interpretation of restrictions on work stoppages in essential services as "forced labour" would only penalize governments of developing countries, which were struggling to maintain economic growth in a context of increased international competition and the market-driven economy.

The Government representative reaffirmed his belief in social dialogue, which was being actively pursued in his country. He also emphasized the will of his country to address the problems that had been raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts in a careful and constructive manner. A number of the Acts to which reference had been made had now lapsed. Those that were still in force were under constant review. With reference to the Karachi electricity company, he had insisted that measures be taken to safeguard the interests of the workers concerned before privatization. In conclusion, he said that his Government's action was intended to achieve improvements in the situation of citizens and workers.

The Worker members, with reference to the statement by the Employer member of India, noted that his interpretation of the Convention did not coincide with that of the ILO supervisory bodies. Moreover, his comments concerning trade unions in developing countries had been superficial and incorrect, as well as being largely irrelevant to the case at hand.

The Employer members wondered to what extent the situation as described in the comments of the Committee of Experts was really the current situation in Pakistan on many of the issues that had been raised. For example, with regard to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, the Government representative had suggested that it was not applied in practice, while the Worker member of Pakistan had indicated that it was indeed applied. The Committee therefore needed to have before it a definitive report on current developments, including the consolidation of labour laws. The Employer members therefore called for the laws that were enacted to be provided to the Committee of Experts for its analysis, which would provide a solid basis for the re-examination of the case by the Committee in future.

The Committee took note of the statement by the Government representative and of the discussion which ensued on the various questions which had been raised in the Committee of Experts' comments for several years, and which had also been examined on several occasions in this Committee. These questions related to divergences between various legislative provisions and the Convention, namely the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952; sections 100-103 of the Merchant Shipping Act; the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952; the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969); sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code; and the Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. The Committee noted, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, that under these provisions it was prohibited for workers in essential services to leave their employment, even after giving notice, without the consent of the employer, or to strike, subject to penalties of imprisonment that might involve compulsory labour. The Committee also noted that infringements of the provisions restricting the rights of expression and association, as well as the peaceful expression of religious views, were also punishable with imprisonment which might involve an obligation to work.

The Committee took note of the privatization of many essential services and of the Government's intention to submit the new labour legislation to tripartite consultation. The Government had also undertaken to consult the social partners on the privatization of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. The Committee expressed deep concern at the lack of progress in bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible in order to ensure the application of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2000, Publication: 88th ILC session (2000)

A Government representative of Pakistan indicated that Pakistan welcomed the opportunity for a constructive dialogue with the Committee on the implementation of ILO Convention No. 105 in Pakistan. He reiterated his Government's commitment to international labour standards and its appreciation of the valuable guidance and advice provided by the Committee on matters related to the implementation of ratified Conventions. He addressed the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the implementation of the Convention point by point.

With respect to the observations on the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Government representative noted that it applied to those employments or categories of employment which were essential for securing the defence or the security of Pakistan and for the maintenance of such supplies or services which were essential to the life of the community. As the Committee had noted, the application of the Act had been made very restrictive. It was important to note that the Act's application to only six services was a reduction from an initial list of ten categories of establishments or areas of work. The restrictions remaining in only six categories of establishments were truly essential to the life of the community. The Government, in its desire for social dialogue and fairness, had provided for a dispute settlement mechanism for employers and workers in the form of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which was the body for resolution of disputes and ensuring industrial equity. The Act was not only applicable to workers, but also governed the conduct of employers, who were prohibited from terminating or suspending workers. In all cases where employers had terminated or suspended workers, the workers had been reinstated by the Commission, which was the relevant regulatory authority. The primary objective of the Act was to avoid any industrial conflict and breakdown of the establishment or industry which could endanger the life and welfare of the country. In normal circumstances, the provisions of the law were rarely enforced. Moreover, workers had resigned from and transferred out of jobs in all categories of establishments covered under the Act. Lastly, the Act did not prohibit trade union activities or the certification of collective bargaining agents.

Turning to comments made regarding the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power project which had been placed under the Act, the speaker noted that it was a 1,450 megawatt project in an advanced stage of construction at a cost of 2.6 billion dollars. He noted that portions of the project had been contracted out in joint venture projects, with the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), one headed by an Italian contractor and another by a Chinese contractor. The Government representative stated that the foreign contractors had been facing difficulties in meeting their obligations to the Government because of disturbances which had included work stoppages and vandalism to project equipment. He pointed out that the ensuing delays cost the foreign contractors 50 million rupees per day and that a one-day delay would cost Pakistan 1 million dollars in losses. In order to continue the construction and avoid these unethical practices, the Government reluctantly decided to apply the Act to the project. He stressed that workers were not barred from lawful activities under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) during the application of the Act, but that this measure had been a necessary safeguard to ensure the project's completion. He assured the Committee that the application of the Act to the project was a temporary measure.

The Government representative indicated that all observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Act had been placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. Headed by a judge from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Commission was due to finalize its recommendations by August 2000. The terms of reference of the Commission included, inter alia, the ILO Conventions and Recommendations. He gave an assurance that the Commission's recommendations would be provided to the ILO and to the social partners when finalized.

In respect of the repeal of sections 101-103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Government representative noted that a new Ordinance was in the process of being enacted in view of the Committee of Experts' comments. The Ordinance was being drafted with the aim of fulfilling the requirements of the Convention and complying with the comments of this Committee and would be provided to the Committee when finalized. He noted that the provisions of the legislation in question would automatically lapse and hoped that this would end the comments on this point.

Turning to the issue of the repeal of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, he stated that this Ordinance was repealed in 1988. The Government had initiated a dialogue with representatives of the Committee of All Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) to draft a new law for the newspaper industry. This dialogue led to the enactment of the Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance, 1988. The 1988 Ordinance was repromulgated every 120 days as required under the law. However, it was allowed to lapse in July 1997, in accordance with an agreement between the Government, the All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) and the Committee of All Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE). The Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance, 1996, to which the Committee of Experts had referred had also been allowed to lapse and at present there was no such law in force. It was the endeavour of the present Government to enact a new press law after a consensus had been reached on the matter within the newspaper industry through a process of social dialogue. Consultations with the APNS and the CPNE were under way.

The Government representative stated that the issue of the repeal of sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) had also been placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, which was due to finalize its recommendations by July or August 2000.

Turning to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Government representative noted that the comments of this Committee had been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. He reiterated that any punishment imposed under these acts would only be implemented after a fair trial in a court of law, in which the accused was and would be given every opportunity to defend and prove his or her innocence.

The Government representative asked the Committee to note that the Government had made an honest effort to address and comply with the comments of the Committee of Experts. Pakistan was moving resolutely to implement international labour standards, not only making efforts to apply ratified Conventions, but also moving to ratify fundamental human rights Conventions, such as the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). He noted that the tripartite structure was in the process of being strengthened and that the social partners remained actively involved. All observations had been placed before the tripartite partners for their views. The Government had recently organized a conference on employment, human resources development and industrial relations, with ILO participation and attendance by the social partners. The recommendations made by the Conference had been adopted by consensus. In summary, remarkable progress had been made by Pakistan, particularly in combating child labour and he indicated that these efforts should convince the Committee of Pakistan's political will to bring its actions into line with its commitments.

The Employer members expressed surprise at receiving new information from the Government representative that had not been included in its report and asked the Government to put this information in writing to the Committee of Experts. The Employer members noted that this was an old case, but that the issues before the Committee today were the same as those before it in the mid-1980s. While there had been a narrowing of the issues, the basic characteristics that had resulted in the Committee's decision to issue special paragraphs in 1986 and 1988 still persisted. The Committee of Experts had been commenting on these issues for approximately 40 years. There were some positive indications, but the Employer members were not convinced that progress had actually been made.

With regard to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Employer members noted the restrictions preventing workers from leaving their employment as well as from striking. In light of the Government's statements that the Act was rarely invoked, the Employer members considered that it should be no problem for Pakistan to let the Act lapse. The Employer members recalled that the essential problem was that employees of federal and provincial governments and local authorities were still subject to prison sentences involving compulsory labour.

The second issue involved the Merchant Shipping Act which, according to the Government representative, was in the process of being amended. Noting that the legislative process in all countries took time and that, until the new law was adopted, the problems remained, the Employer members asked the Government representative to indicate when the new law was expected to be adopted. They also suggested that the draft law be submitted to the Committee of Experts for its views.

In respect of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Employer members noted that the Government apparently had wide discretionary authority to decide to prohibit the publication of views and order the dissolution of associations. If, as the Government representative had stated, the law had lapsed, the Employer members were surprised that the ILO and the Committee of Experts were not aware of this new information. They therefore requested that the Government apprise the Committee of Experts so that it could evaluate the practical effect of this change in the law.

In the context of the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), the Employer members questioned the function of the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. If, as they believed, it was a tripartite advisory body, rather than a legislative body, then additional steps would probably need to be taken and additional time would pass before the legislation in question was repealed and new legislation was enacted.

The Employer members also noted the continual problem of sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, under which members of certain religious groups using Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles could be punished with imprisonment. In conclusion, there were indications of progress, but the central themes previously addressed by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts were still the same. While the Employer members appreciated the Government's positive attitude, they considered that there must also be positive compliance and urged the Government to act with all speed and urgency.

The Worker members declared they were pleased to be able to discuss with the Government of Pakistan the application of Convention No. 105, regarding which it also had several things to say. They would have liked to have the possibility of also discussing the application of Convention No. 87 because they believed that there remained much work to do to bring national law and practice into conformity with the Convention. Although the last time the Committee discussed this case was in 1992, it had on several occasions in past years discussed the problem of forced labour in Pakistan in the context of Convention No. 29. Since 1996 the Committee of Experts had yet again formulated observations concerning the application of Convention No. 105 by the Government of Pakistan. In its latest report, it asked the Government, in a footnote, to provide detailed information to the Conference this year.

The first question concerned Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention, that is the prohibition against forced labour as a disciplinary sanction and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, prohibited employees, in several sectors of the public services, from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, subject to penalties of imprisonment that might involve compulsory labour. The Government had affirmed for several years, and in particular in the context of the discussions in the Committee on Application of Convention No. 29, that this law could be applied for only a limited time and that these provisions were necessary to secure the defence or security of the country and the maintenance of such supplies or services that were essential to the life of the community. In practice, however, this law was applied permanently and in situations which in no case could be considered as exceptional. The Committee of Experts had also recalled that in order to be able to invoke the essential services exception, there really had to be a danger for the community and not only a disturbance. The current practice in Pakistan which deprived a great number of its workers from the freedom to terminate their unlimited contracts with a reasonable notice period, was a violation of one of the fundamental labour rights. This was clearly a case of unacceptable forced or obligatory labour. The Worker members had asked that an end be put thereto not only in law but also in practice.

The Merchant Shipping Act was also contrary to Article 1(c) and (d) of Convention No. 105. According to this Act, penalties involving compulsory labour might be imposed on seafarers in relation to various breaches of labour discipline. The 1996 Merchant Shipping Bill retained provisions of this type which were contrary to the Convention. While it was possible, in exceptional situations, to provide that workers could be required to work for a limited period of time and only in situations of danger for the population, the law applicable to seafarers went much further and created unacceptable situations in which seafarers could be returned on board ship by force to perform their duties.

The second question concerned the application of Article 1(a) and (e) of Convention No. 105. The Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, gave the authorities the power to order the dissolution of associations and to prohibit the publication of views, subject to penalties of imprisonment which might involve compulsory labour, which was a violation of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Worker members had noted the oral information provided by the Government representative. They requested that this information be transmitted to the Committee of Experts to enable it to examine if the present situation conformed to the Convention. The Government had asserted that religious discrimination was prohibited by law and that there was no such discrimination. In practice, however, there were several examples of serious violations of religious minorities' rights as well as of assassinations and forced labour imposed on certain persons due to their religious beliefs. The legal basis used to sentence persons to a punishment which could be imprisonment accompanied by compulsory labour were sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code. According to available information at the end of 1999, 30 Ahmadis had been imprisoned only on account of their beliefs. The explanations provided in the past by the Government had been ambiguous. On the one hand, it had stated that religious discrimination was contrary to the Constitution and to Pakistani law, and that there was no such discrimination in practice. On the other hand, it had declared that it had taken legislative and administrative measures to limit the exercise of religious practices similar to Islamic practices because, according to the Government, these represented a threat to security and public order. The Committee of Experts recalled that the Convention proscribed sanctions on peaceful expressions of religious beliefs or which were addressed, more generally, or exclusively, to certain social or religious groups (irrespective of the breach committed). The Worker members supported this view and emphasized that the Government should, without further delay, put an end to existing discriminations, in particular, in view of the scope of these discriminations which could, as demonstrated, result in the application of forced labour.

The third question concerned the application of Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 provided that, whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision, may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. More than ten years ago, the Government had indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to replace the sanction of imprisonment with what was called "simple imprisonment". The Worker members requested information on the status of this Bill.

They stated that the Pakistan case was a very serious case. It concerned, in fact, not only a single legal provision or a single factual situation in violation of Convention No. 105, but a whole series of violations in law and in practice that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee already for several years had declared should cease. The Government should seek solutions together with the social partners. The ILO should provide the Government with technical assistance in order to bring the law into conformity with Conventions ratified, in particular with Convention No. 105, as the Government had been stating for quite some time.

The Worker member of Pakistan noted that the Worker members had spoken at length on the issues concerning Pakistani workers. He recalled that Pakistani workers had brought a complaint against the Government and was grateful that the Committee on Freedom of Association had requested the Government to comply with its obligations. The former Government had restricted the fundamental rights of workers, which led them to boycott the tripartite consultation process. A more positive climate now existed and the Government had assured Pakistani workers that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was likely to be amended by restoring fundamental trade union rights to 140,000 WAPDA workers in line with the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association of November 1999. He requested the Government to expedite this adoption and to look into other violations of ratified Conventions, including Convention No. 87.

In respect of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, it should only apply to activities whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of persons. The Government should amend this legislation in accordance with the Committee of Experts' comments. With regard to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), the Government should immediately amend these provisions as requested by the Committee of Experts, instead of awaiting the recommendations of the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. With respect to the Merchant Shipping Act, the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Government should provide full details in writing to the Committee of Experts. As to the matter of certain religious groups he stated that Pakistani workers believed in tolerance; however, there were certain elements that exploited their religious beliefs instead of promoting democratic rights. However, he emphasized that no one group should be singled out. He considered that the Government should conduct further inquiries into this problem.

In conclusion, he considered that there was evidence of positive social dialogue and political will on the part of the Government. The speaker hoped that the Government would share his belief that workers should not be deprived of their rights to collectively bargain and organize on the grounds that these rights interfered with the interests of multinationals. The Government should reach an agreement with workers through social dialogue instead of imposing the restrictions cited in the Committee of Experts' comments. Noting that Pakistani workers shared the Government's goal of economic and social development, he expressed the hope that the Government and the social partners could establish and maintain a constructive social dialogue.

The Worker member of Italy, responding to the Government representative's statements regarding the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, pointed out that the main obstacles to the development of the project were the delays caused by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). These included delays in expropriating necessary land, and delays in the payment of millions of dollars from the World Bank which stayed in the hands of WAPDA instead of being passed on to the contractor for the project. In fact, just before the Government's application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to this project, the contractor had declared its intent to cease construction due to problems in its relationship with WAPDA. Another obstacle to the project was the contractor middlemen, who continuously threatened the worker representatives and the trade union. The Italian contractor had also refused to negotiate with the workers for approximately one-and-a-half years. In these circumstances, the company and WAPDA asked for application of the Act. Subsequently, a lockout was imposed for a number of days while the leaders of the trade union were arrested and left in jail for over one month. The National Industrial Relations Council reinstated the workers, but additional anti-union initiatives took place on the company's behalf, which included the suspension of the Pakistani union as bargaining agent. The speaker noted that, thanks to the collaboration between the Italian and Pakistani trade unions, an agreement was reached to reinstate the union as bargaining agent and to develop joint industrial relations training with the union representative of the project. Noting that a dialogue had been initiated to reach an agreement between management and the workers, she indicated that the Italian and Pakistani unions welcomed this new contractor policy and considered that it would form the basis for sound industrial relations in the future.

She stated that Convention No. 105 was continuously violated by public and private employers in Pakistan in various sectors. With regard to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, she noted its application in state enterprises, including oil and gas production, electricity generation, airlines, ports and EPZs. She characterized the Act as an undemocratic law which violated fundamental trade union rights established by the ILO core Conventions and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The Government had arbitrarily applied the Act to productive plants or building sites at the request of the employers. The Act had been applied and then reinstated repeatedly with regard to the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project due to pressure from contractors. She asserted that the Act was not used to protect state security, but to suspend the implementation of labour legislation and to deny workers the right to organize and bargain collectively to defend their interests against company abuses. The Act had also been applied in regard to the Daewoo project, where its application had been requested and granted for purposes of "social peace". The union had been forced into a lengthy appeal process in the labour courts, to no avail. The Act had also been applied in various production plants, including plants producing chemicals for agricultural and for military use.

Turning to the issue of bonded labour, she noted that there was widespread use of debt bondage in Pakistan, including in the agricultural sector. This practice violated not only Convention No. 105, but also Conventions Nos. 138 and 182. The strong power of landlords and the attitude of national and local authorities -- who knew of violations, but did not intervene even after receiving complaints -- posed the major obstacles. She cited Amnesty International's comments that bonded labourers, including children, were often under the control of powerful figures such as landlords, many of which occupied high positions in the Parliament or in provincial institutions and held sway over local officials and police. She urged that action be taken to end bonded labour in cooperation with the social partners, other organizations and with ILO assistance.

The Government representative expressed his appreciation to all members of the Committee for their comments. In response to the statements made by the Worker member of Pakistan, he noted that his Government believed in unimpeded social dialogue and shared the common goal of social and economic development with all the Pakistani trade unions. He noted that the Worker member of Pakistan had recently complimented the Government for restoring workers' rights to a large trade union.

Responding to the comments of the Worker member of Italy on the issue of bonded labour, he stressed that Pakistan was committed to eliminating child labour, bonded labour and debt bondage in the country. The Government wished to progressively eliminate all forms of child labour and had recently promulgated a plan of action that would specifically address the various forms of child labour in Pakistan. He noted that this problem was linked to poverty, and was a problem which had been inherited by the current Government. The Government had established a benevolent fund of 100 million rupees for the education and rehabilitation of bonded and child labourers and had also launched a project whose objectives were to utilize multiple strategies to eliminate child labour.

In response to the statements made by the Employer members, the Government representative confirmed that he would submit in writing to the Committee of Experts all statements made in this Committee.

The Worker members expressed the wish that the oral information provided by the Government representative be examined by the Committee of Experts. They declared they were very concerned by this case as it concerned not only a single contradiction with the provisions of the Convention, but a whole series of laws and practices allowing for recourse to forced labour. A prerequisite was to have the political will to improve the situation. Technical assistance from the ILO could also help the Government to bring law and practice into conformity with the provision of Convention No. 105. A major point in the statement made by the Government representative was the importance given to social dialogue and tripartism. It was in fact essential that solutions to violations of the Convention be examined jointly with the social partners.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative and of the discussion which ensued. It noted that this was a case that had been examined by the Committee of Experts for nearly 40 years, and which had been discussed in the Conference Committee several times over the past years. The Committee regretted that very little improvement in compliance with the Convention had been achieved in the areas pointed out by the Committee of Experts over many years, including in particular the legal restrictions on termination of employment and on striking, as well as on the expression of certain political and religious views, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, and imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline by seafarers. The Committee noted the Government's explanation concerning various measures envisaged or undertaken. It hoped that all of this information as well as further details and copies of the new legislation would be provided in the Government's next report to the Committee of Experts. The Committee urged the Government to take, without delay, all the necessary measures to bring the law and practice into conformity with the Convention on all the issues pointed out by the Committee of Experts. It reminded the Government of the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the ILO.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative noted that the points raised under this Convention concerned compulsory prison labour. He indicated that any legislation which fell strictly within the purview of the Convention and which provided for compulsory prison labour should be repealed. In such cases, simple imprisonment should be the penalty. Compulsory labour provided in cases not covered under the five clauses in the Convention could, however, remain. The speaker expressed the opinion that the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the prohibition of the publication of certain views was not covered by the Convention. With reference to the Bill to amend the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance of 1963, the speaker confirmed that this Bill had lapsed as it had not been laid before the National Assembly within the four months required under the Constitution. The Ministry of Information indicated that if any provisions of this Bill were in violation of the Convention they should be deleted. The draft provided to the Office, however, contained no provision about compulsory labour. The Bill would be put before the National Assembly again, however, and would not contain any provision about compulsory labour. He pointed out, however, that the Publications Ordinance of 1963 only provided for compulsory labour in the case where a newspaper was operated without having obtained the necessary declaration from the Government. This had nothing to do with the expression of a political opinion. In such instances, persons were only punished with compulsory labour for having violated a simple law to obtain a declaration prior to starting a newspaper. The Convention, however, only prohibited compulsory labour with respect to political opinion. He added that any legislation which actually provided for compulsory labour for the expression of a political opinion should clearly be repealed as it would be in violation of the Convention. As concerns the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the speaker agreed that any compulsory labour provided as a punishment in these Acts should be repealed, to the extent that they contravene the provisions of the Convention. The speaker asserted that the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahamadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance No. XX of 1984 did not concern religious discrimination. The only objective of the Act was to ensure that the religious feelings of others were not hurt. Persons attacking Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism would also be punished. He referred to the particular sects covered by the Ordinance and indicated that they offended the Muslims by attacking their prophet and calling themselves Muslims while believing that their leader was a prophet. These were concerns of national sovereignty and were in no way covered by the Convention. Finally, the speaker expressed his opinion that the information noted by the Committee of Experts provided in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction had nothing to do with the Convention.

The Employers' members noted that the most important point made by the Government was that, if there was any provision of compulsory labour under the five instances covered by the Convention, then such legislation should be amended. The commitment made by the Government should find concrete form in the necessary legislation for adoption as soon as possible, including the Bills which had lapsed. They noted the indication made by the Government that the legislation on press and publications only concerned the administrative question of obtaining a permit in order to run a newspaper. The effect that this new information would have upon the application of the Convention would have to be reviewed by the Committee of Experts and the relevant legislation should be sent to it for examination. They noted the Government's recognition that any provisions for compulsory labour in the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the Merchant Shipping Act were contrary to the Convention and should be repealed as soon as possible. They considered that the question of religious discrimination involved a great deal of subjectivity and requested that the Government supply as much information as possible to the Office so that a thorough assessment could be made of the situation.

The Workers' members thanked the Government for the information it provided and noted that there was perhaps the possibility of advancement with respect to the application of this Convention. This case had been discussed in the Committee since 1980 and several special paragraphs had been applied to it. It was essential that the intentions expressed by the Government be transformed into concrete action, in particular the adoption of the necessary legislative amendments. Bills containing the necessary amendments to the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and the Merchant Shipping Act had to be adopted in order to ensure conformity with the Convention. The necessary measures should be taken in the very near future and the relevant texts sent to the Office for examination by the Committee of Experts. As concern religious freedom, the Government continued to insist that this freedom exists and that no forced labour is used as a means of religious discrimination. The Committee of Experts' report on the other hand provided certain information from the Human Rights Commission which tended to prove the contrary. Detailed information from the Government replying to the allegations made in the report of the Human Rights Commission would be necessary for a full assessment by the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention. They hoped that progress could be made in the near future.

The Workers' member of Pakistan welcome the indication made by the Government representative that the Merchant Shipping Act and the Industrial Relations Ordinance would be brought into conformity with the Convention. They suggested that the Government consider the possibility of technical assistance from the Office in order to help it bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. He added that, as concerns religious freedom, the trade union movement in Pakistan consisted of members from all religions and their interests were defended equally. All religions should be respected and should respect each other in order to ensure the religious tolerance necessary for stable and healthy society.

A Workers' member of the United States noted that this was a classic case in which assistance from the ILO could help to find a solution to the differences of opinion concerning the application of the Convention. The Government had expressed good will to bring its situation into conformity with the Convention. They hoped that the Government would consider technical assistance in this regard.

The Government representative stated that his Government could ensure the application of this Convention by itself and would not require technical assistance from the Office.

The Committee noted the information given by the Government including its undertaking to change the existing legislation in so far as it was in contravention with the Convention. In welcoming this willingness, the Committee reminded the Government that the Committee of Experts had raised other points than those on which the Government had indicated it would modify its legislation. The Committee hoped that the Government would reconsider its position on those other points and would send a report with full particulars, including a copy of the drafts changing the relevant legislation, as soon as possible.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

See under Convention No. 29, as follows:

A Government representative assured this Committee that there had not been any deliberate attempt to delay the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. The process of application had been slowed owing to difficult conditions prevailing in the country. His Government reiterated its commitment to bringing all national labour laws into conformity with ILO Conventions and totally abolishing bonded labour in whatever form it might exist. His Government had initiated a number of steps to fulfil this commitment given by the present Government in its election manifesto and subsequently reiterated by the Prime Minister. In this vein, his Government had restored certain fundamental rights under the Constitution: slavery in all its forms, forced labour and child labour under the age of 14 years were strictly prohibited; the illegal hiring of children was punished by law; aggrieved parties could enforce their legal and constitutional rights through the judiciary, as evidence by the case of bonded labour in the brick-kiln industry, mentioned in the Committee of Experts' report. The Government had decided to abolish bonded labour through a law which would ensure complete freedom of bonded labourers. The proposed law had been approved by Cabinet and was soon expected to be enacted. Under this law, bonded labourers would be freed from any obligation to render any labour; the law would make void and inoperative all customs, traditions, practices, contracts or agreements obliging bonded labourers of their families whether they were entered into or in operation before or after its entering into force. Under the law, every obligation of the bonded labourer to repay any bonded debt or part thereof would be extinguished and unenforceable. Those who violated the law would be punished with substantial fines and penal sanctions. Bonded labourers working after the commencement of the law would be paid at the prescribed rates and application of the law would be monitored by local vigilance committees. Regarding restrictions on termination of employment in establishments covered by the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, amendments were under consideration to make it possible for an employee to terminate his employment in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service or the contract of employment.

Concerning Convention No. 105, the Government representative reiterated that there was no law in the country forcing any person to work. The provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act did not contemplate any forced labour because punishment under them could only be imposed by the courts after a regular trial. Concerning the Committee of Experts' observations on the Press and Publication Ordinance, he stated that a Bill to amend that Ordinance (copies of which would be provided) had been introduced in Parliament. Action to amend sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 had been initiated to meet the Committee of Experts' objections. The Government representative reiterated that religious discrimination did not exist and was forbidden by the Constitution and national laws; forced labour as a result of religious discrimination did not exist and minorities including Ahmadis/Qadianis enjoyed all constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Government had not yet received the report of the Special Rapporteur on the application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Conviction. The report would be examined and detailed information submitted on this issue.

A Workers' member of the United Kingdom recalled that there had been discussion of this case in the present Committee in 1989. During that discussion "the Workers' members welcomed the Government representative's statement that a number of acts which had been issue in the consideration of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 were repealed or were being repealed". This Committee at that time expressed great concern. This year, the speaker observed that little progress had been made since last year. For instance, the report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery indicated that there had been no real study of child bondage by South East Asian countries even though a large percentage of working children were found in that situation. He recognised the difficulties facing the country, particularly the longstanding nature of the problem and the military dictatorship that had for many years controlled the country. This did not, however, relieve this Committee of its responsibilities in pressing for full implementation of these key Conventions. The speaker was encouraged by the decision of the Pakistan Supreme Court which had held that brick-kiln labourers were bonded labourers, but he remained concerned about the implementation of this significant decision. It should be relatively easy to amend the existing law; it was much more difficult to bring about its full implementation, particularly in isolated regions. Nevertheless amendments to existing laws were needed and the speaker asked the Government representative to indicate positively when these proposed laws would be introduced in Parliament and brought into effect.

A Workers' member of the Netherlands observed that the habit of the previous Government of repeating information previously given on the case seemed to have been adopted by the new Government, except that the substance of the information which was repeated appeared to be more promising. Action was needed in addition to the repeated promises. He asked what reactions had been received in Parliament to the proposed legislative changes and whether there had been any consideration given to a system of monitoring the implementation of these changes. He noted that the tens of millions of people who fell within the category of bonded labourers created enormous practical difficulties in monitoring the implementation of laws aimed at eliminating the system of bonded labour and called for action to redress the problem.

A Workers' member of Pakistan stated that the trade union movement in Pakistan had consistently urged the Government to implement ILO Conventions, particularly basic human rights Conventions. He believed bonded labour was a legacy from the colonial past and represented a denial of basic needs, including meaningful employment and good working conditions, to the rural poor. He agreed that some legal and constitutional provisions had come into effect and were enforced, but felt that there was a need to ensure implementation of these laws through the strength found only in an organised labour movement. The trade union movement had promoted three approaches to labour policy changes which would affect implementation of ILO Conventions. First, it called for accelerated approval of proposed changes to national legislation and their entry into force. Secondly, it sought strengthened labour inspection machinery. Thirdly, it wanted increased attention to be paid to improving overall economic and social conditions including, for example, education, housing, medical facilities and social security. He urged the Government to award the increased minimum wage of Rs. 1,100 per month to these workers. He also stressed the need to approve legislation on the Restoration of Trade Union Rights in the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations as well as in the National Airlines. In Pakistan, there was a special Ministry to look after the welfare of minorities. The trade union movement endorsed the equality of all workers irrespective of race, colour, creed and promoted tolerance, mutual respect and fraternity.

The Employers' members considered this to be a very important case for this Committee because it had been discussed seven times over the past 10 years and had been the subject of a special paragraph on three occasions during the same period. They noted that in the past the accuracy of statements had been questioned; although this year the Government had openly admitted that there was a problem of bonded labour, the need to take action to eliminate the problem in practice could not be over-emphasised. Concerning the issue of termination of employment, they urged that the promised amending legislation be enacted as soon as possible.

With respect to Convention No. 105, the Employers' members believed that the Government representative had said last year that certain legislation had been repealed; it appeared from statements today that the law, in fact, had not been overturned. They asked if the Government had provided full information to the Committee of Experts on these amendments and on their practical application.

The Government representative stated that, although the new Government had inherited numerous problems which were difficult to resolve, a clear change was evidenced by the fact that it had fixed certain priorities which included emphasis on the welfare of the working class and the abolition of bonded labour. Thus proposed amendments to laws were before Parliament and the speaker hoped that they would be adopted within a couple of months. With respect to the implementation of these laws, the Government representation reiterated that practical steps would be taken through regional committees set up for that purpose. There had been practical successes in that a large number of bonded labourers had already left their employer in search of free employment, and continued education of workers would more fully ensure the exercise of the freedoms which they had not previously enjoyed.

The Workers' members joined the Employers' members in viewing this case as an important one and in nothing the steps forward shown by the Government's acknowledgement of the existence of the problem of bonded labour. They noted that the new Government had gone further to elaborate legislation to end the practice, but felt that this Committee was obliged to express great concern over the need for rapid adoption of new legislation and for its effective implementation.

The Government representative reiterated that correcting the problem under discussion was a priority for his Government. He gave the assurance that the national laws would be brought into conformity with the Conventions and there would be some progress in time for the next meeting of this Committee.

The Committee noted the information communicated by the Government representative. It did not doubt the goodwill and intentions of the Government to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the convention. However, it expressed its disappointment and concern that the information provided did not satisfy the expectations of the Committee, based on the assurance the Government had given at its 1989 meeting. It therefore felt obliged to urge the Government to give the highest priority to its endeavours in this respect in order that the Committee would be able to observe progress at its next session.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

A Government representative stated that the Prime Minister, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, in her address to the nation on 2 December 1988, announced that restrictions placed on trade union activities by the previous regime would be removed and labour laws would be brought in conformity with the Convention.

In accordance with the commitment of the Prime Minister, trade union activities were fully restored and legislative measures were being taken to provide necessary legal backing.

A Review Board was also constituted to decide the cases of those employees who were penalised for their trade union activities.

Referring to the Committee of Experts' observations on the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, according to which the provisions of that law are in conflict with the provisions of No. 29, ratified by Pakistan, the Government representative announced that the Government had decided to meet the requirements of the that Convention by amending the Act, so that an employee of an establishment covered under the Act may terminate his employment in accordance with the expressed or implied terms of the contract of employment. The proposed amendment would be placed before the Parliament.

As concerns the reference to the use of alleged bonded labour by contractors, known as "Kharkars", in the construction of dams and irrigation canals, the Government representative stated that his Government categorically denied the existence of any "Kharkar" camp in the country. In addition, the mention made of the alleged bonded children in "Kharkar" camps by the Sectoral Review Mission of the ILO (July-August 1986), also referred to by the Committee of Experts, was based on hearsay, having little support of any recorded evidence. Had there been any such "Kharkar" camp in howsoever remote areas of the country, the members of the Mission were free to go and inspect the same. The Government. therefore, reiterated its earlier submission that there was no illegal bonded labour in the country.

Regarding the Committee of Experts' observations on certain sections of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, giving the autorities powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour, the Government representative informed this Committee that the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, had since been repealed. Under the provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 and the Political Parties Act, 1962, offenders are tried in ordinary courts of law with full right to be represented by legal counsel of their choice and they have the right to appeal to the superior courts. The Government was of the view that conviction of offenders by courts of law for specific offences under these laws did not fall within the scope of the Convention.

In order to meet the objections raised by the Committee of Experts on sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the relevant provisions were being amended so that the element of compulsory labour was removed. The word "imprisonment" would be substituted by "simple imprisonment". The Government had already presented a Bill in Parliament to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance so that these sections were brought into conformity with the present Convention. It should also be noted that the provisions of sections 54 and 55 are equally applicable to employers and workers.

Similarly, the Government was taking necessary action to make suitable amendments to the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Act.

A Worker member of Pakistan informed this Committee that the climate in Pakistan was much better since last year's elections when the new Prime Minister promised that the Government would bring law and practice into conformity with ILO Conventions. With regard to the issues under Convention No. 29, the assurances made by the Government to bring the provisions of the Essential Services Act and the West Pakistan Essential Services Act into conformity with that Convention was a welcome step. This legislation, however, should be placed before the Parliament for adoption as soon as possible. Under the present legislation, workers were still compelled not to leave the services of their employer without his/her consent.

As concern the "Kharkars", even though the Constitution prohibited forced labour, the Government could still play a more positive role in carrying out effective labour inspection, particularly as concerns construction work, in order to ensure implementation of the relevant legislation. While it was true that workers were able to seek remedies from the courts in order to protect their rights, the Government could take preventive action through labour inspection.

With regard to Convention No. 105, the Government should supply the ILO with any new legislation so that the supervisory bodies could determine whether the new legislation was in conformity with the ratified Conventions. The Government should supply the new legislation replacing the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance as soon as possible. The Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act which provided sanctions involving rigorous imprisonment should be reviewed by the Government.

As concerns minorities in Pakistan, the Government has set up a special Minority Ministry to look into questions of discrimination. A special ministry has also been established for the advancement of women. The Government should take the necessary measures to bring its law and practice into conformity with the ILO Conventions.

The Workers' members welcomed the Government representative's statement that a number of acts which had been at issue in the considerations of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 were repealed or being repealed. Good relations and a constructive dialogue should be established with the new Government. If the Government had actually submitted its reports to the Committee of Experts, this Committee would have been able to make judgements and draw conclusions on the basis of the Committee of Experts' comments. If the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, has been either amended or repealed, or substituted by another Act, full details should be provided to the Committee of Experts.

As concerns the Government representative's statement that the ILO Sectorial Review Mission report on "Kharkars" was erroneous, it would be helpful if the Government, in any event, supplied information on the measures taken to enforce the prohibition of forced labour in the field of contract labour. The Government should also supply detailed information on the actual measures undertaken or envisaged, as concerns all types of exploitation of labour, such as forced labour.

With regard to Convention No. 105, it was not clear whether the Government representative stated that the Security of Pakistan Act was being repealed or replaced. The Committee of Experts pointed out quite clearly that the Security of Pakistan Act was in contravention of Article 1(a) of this Convention. Any replacement of these Acts, or any amendments, should be transmitted to the Committee of Experts for their consideration.

The workers' members noted that the Government representative said that the Industrial Relations Ordinance his being amended to replace the term "imprisonment" with "simple imprisonment". The Workers' member further said that the term "simple imprisonment" required clarification, because the existing Industrial Relations Ordinance was completely contrary to Article 1(c). In previous years, the Government stated that nobody had been punished under this Ordinance. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that the mere fact that the threat existed, that the legislation existed, was sufficient in itself to bring it into contravention of Article 1(c). The Industrial Relations Ordinance should be amended so as to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 105.

As concerns the Merchant Shipping Act, further information should be provided in order to determine whether Pakistan has fulfilled its obligations under Articles 1(c) and (d) of the present Convention.

As concerns Article 1(e), the question was posed to the Government representative whether sections 298(b) and (c) of the Penal Code had, in fact, been repealed. As long as ordinances and orders exist dealing with a particular religious group, then whether, in fact, a country is observing the particular Convention is called into question.

Information must be supplied to the ILO with regard to all these matters so that the Committee of Experts may fully examine this case and so that the present Committee may properly continue its work.

The Employers' members stated that it was refreshing to hear of the positive developments taking place in Pakistan.

There were six problems raised as concerns the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. First, as concerns Convention No. 29, the Government representative should have stated when the legislation relating to termination of employment subject to consent would be amended. Secondly, the Government should supply information confirming the position that bonded labour by contractors does not exist so that the Committee of Experts may be able to substantiate its statements.

Thirdly, as concerns Convention No. 105, the need for the Government to submit written reports was stressed. The statements made by the Government representative concerning the amendment of the Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act in order to provide for the right of appeal did not clearly demonstrate how these laws would then be in conformity with Convention No. 105. It was, however, a step in the right direction and the new legislation could provide the Committee of Experts with information to evaluate the new situation.

Fourthly, as concerns the Industrial Relations Act, whether the Act referred to "simple imprisonment" or "imprisonment" did not seem to change the fact that this legislation was in contradiction to the Convention. Further clarification was needed.

Fifthly, the revisions referred to by the Government representative concerning the Merchant Shipping Act should be adopted as soon as possible. Finally, more complete fact-finding was necessary as concerns the penal sanctions relating to Islamic activities. The information provided by the Government was considered to be very positive and hope was expressed that the Government would continue to make progress.

The Government representative expressed his wish that he could have been able to provide more details about concrete measures, but the new Government had only come into power six months ago and it takes time to make changes in the legislation. As concerns the Essential Services Act, the Cabinet had already decided upon its amendment and this matter Parliament would act on this matter. The necessary measures would be taken to bring the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act into conformity with the ratified Convention. As concerns bonded labour, it should be noted that forced labour was against the Constitution of Pakistan, which was the supreme law of the land. The kidnapping of children for bonded labour was punishable by death in Pakistan. The Government representative noted the observation made by the Worker member of Pakistan and stated that labour inspection would be improved.

The West Pakistan Press and Publication Ordinance had been repealed and any new legislation adopted in this area would be transmitted to the Office.

The Government representative reiterated his position that neither the Political Parties Act nor the Security of Pakistan Act were within the scope of Convention No. 105 because these Acts concerned offences against the integrity and security of the State, and the offenders were provided a fair hearing before an ordinary court of law with the right of appeal to the superior court. The punishment of rigorous imprisonment, considered to be forced labour, was awarded by the civil courts exercising their judicial discretion and which is appealable. As concerns the Political Parties Act, the Government was obliged to refer any cases concerning the dissolution of an association to the superior court for confirmation. Any law that was considered in violation against the Constitution could be challenged before the superior court.

The Cabinet had already decided to amend sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the matter would be referred to Parliament for formal approval. As concerns sections 298(B) and (C) of the Penal Code, the Constitution of Pakistan guaranteed freedom of expression and freedom of religious beliefs. This freedom existed as long as the feelings of another religious community were not injured. Anyone, regardless of his religious conviction, will be punished for professing his religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. This section of the Penal Code was drafted so as to resolve the differences between the Moslem and Ahmadi practices of faith with a view to ensuring peace and tranquility, particularly in public places of worship.

The Workers' members referred once again to the Security of Pakistan Act. The Government representative seemed to be repeating the position asserted on previous occasions that the conviction of offenders by courts of law was not covered by the Convention. The Committee of Experts, however, indicated on numerous occasions that compulsory labour in any form, including prison labour, which resulted from a conviction by a court of law as a penalty for expression of political views, was within the scope of the Convention. The Committee of Experts asked on a number of occasions that information on the practical application of the Security of Pakistan Act, including the number of convictions and copies of court decisions, be provided. This information on the Security of Pakistan Act, as well as information concerning the repeal of or amendment to, the Industrial Relations Ordinance should be provided to the Committee of Experts. The Government representative should convey to his Government the views of this Committee concerning the divergences between the Security of Pakistan Act and Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Government representative of Pakistan said that the present Committee's reiteration of "grave concern" was somewhat "discouraging" in view of the fact that positive developments have been reported on so many points.

The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government representative. The Committee once again expressed its great concern with regard to the points already discussed in the Committee during previous sessions and regretted that no report had been received. The Committee, however, noted with satisfaction the positive development as concerns the implementation of Conventions Nos 29 and 105, in particular, the progress made or being made with regard to the legislation. The Committee asked the Government to continue to take, as soon as possible, all necessary measures to bring the law and practice fully into conformity with Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. In particular, the Committee asked the Government to provide the detailed information requested by the Committee of Experts and to send to the Office any new legislation, as well as draft laws, so that the progress made in law and practice could be noted. The Committee expressed the hope that, at its next Conference, it would be able to note the real progress made in the different areas covered by these two Conventions.

The Government representative of Pakistan said that the present Committee's reiteration of "grave concern" was somewhat "discouraging" in view of the fact that positive developments have been reported on so many points.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative stated that, under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1965, violations of collective agreements by employers and workers alike were punishable by law. He reiterated the position of his Government that nobody had been punished in the recent past under the provisions of that Ordinance. The penalties provided therein were only to ensure that employers and workers respected the collective agreements they concluded through the process of collective bargaining. As regards the observations of the Committee of Experts on the provisions of section 298 (b) and 298(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, he explained that forced labour as a result of religious discrimination did not exist and was forbidden under the Constitution and laws of Pakistan. With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts on certain provisions of the West Pakistan Press and Public Ordinance 1963, he reiterated the view of the Government as stated in its latest report that the conviction of offenders by courts of law for specific offences did not fall within the scope of the Convention. The courts therefore had discretion in awarding punishment according to the gravity of the offence.

The Workers' members observed that, once again, the statement of the Government representative was disappointing, being identical to the ones given in the preceding sessions of the Conference Committee. They could see no progress, not even in the cooperation with the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had specifically recommended to the Government of Pakistan to revise sections 298(b) and (c) of the Penal Code, yet the present Committee had been given no indication about any follow-up to this recommendation. The situation in this case was no different from the one regarding Convention No. 29 and the Workers' members suggested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph in the report together with the indication that other measures would have to be taken at the next session should no change occur by then.

The Employers' members stated that they agreed with the Workers' members. The Government representative of Pakistan did not provide any satisfactory reply to the four separate questions listed in the Committee of Experts' report. First, there were excessive powers of the authorities which could lead to forced labour, in particular on political grounds; the Committee of Experts had requested details on the practical application of this law. No such details had been given, in spite of the declaration that the law was not being applied to impose forced labour. At the very least, the Government should have provided copies of court decisions that had been made in practice. Second, compulsory labour could be imposed to enforce labour discipline under various provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Merchant Shopping Act. If, as the Government stated, this was not applied, then the law should be modified accordingly. As regards the Merchant Shipping Act, amendments had even been envisaged previously but there had been no more reference to these at the present sitting of the Committee, so there was a step back. As regards the sanctions concerning anti-Islamic activities, the Government had stated that there did not exist any practice leading to forced labour as a result of religious discrimination; in that case also, the law should consequently be revised if it was not used, but no such plans had been announced by the Government. Therefore, the Employers' members shared the view of the Workers' members that no progress had been accomplished, and that the present Committee had to maintain its position as in the previous year.

The Government representative reiterated his Government's declaration that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan guaranteed certain fundamental rights. As regards sections 298(b) and 298(c) of the Penal Code, the Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of race, religion, etc. The Superior Courts had judicial review powers and if any party claimed that certain laws were discriminatory they could challenge those laws in court. He had already explained that forced labour as a result of religious discrimination was non-existent and forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan. As regards the Merchant Shipping Act, a Bill had been introduced in the National Assembly to amend the relevant sections (100-103), but, due to the dissolution of the Assembly and the forthcoming elections, no progress could be made. He concluded by stating that the position of his Government had already been explained in its latest report, so he felt no need to repeat something that had already been submitted to the Committee in that report.

The Committee noted the explanations given by the Government representative. As the main issues raised had been repeatedly discussed previously, the Committee again expressed its serious concern and urged the Government to take very shortly the necessary measures to put its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention, and to supply the detailed information requested by the Committee of Experts. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its General Report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

See under Convention No. 29, as follows:

A Government representative reiterated his Government's earlier stand with reference to Convention No. 29 that it was strictly following a policy of minimum reliance on the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and stressed that some of the industrial units which had been operating under that Act had recently been removed from its purview. This removal was going to be a continuous process so that, when the application of the Act was no longer considered necessary, action would be taken to eliminate the remaining units from its scope. The Act applied to a very small minority of workers and was not at all invoked as a matter of rule; it was basically an enabling law concerning, inter alia, voluntary termination of service in cases of emergency. There was no shortage of skilled or unskilled labour in Pakistan and therefore the Government was under no economic compulsion to keep labour in forced employment or a worker in his job against his will. In practice, workers left their employment as a matter of routine and a number of workers from some very essential units, such as refineries, had gone abroad to work outside the country; there was therefore complete freedom of movement from one job to another in the industries covered by the Act. The discussion dealt with a hypothetical situation since the Act did not infringe the rights of workers to terminate or leave their employ- ment of their own free will. The Government, however, retained its power to use the Act in the case of an emergency threatening essential services, i.e. those whose interruption jeopardis security and well-being of the greater part of the population or directly or indirectly threatened national security. The socio-economic and political situation of the country had to be taken into account.

As for the Committee of Experts' comments regarding "Kharkars", he stated that no labour camps were allowed to operate anywhere in Pakistan or for any purpose where forced labour was exacted from workers. Any attempt to employ forced labour resulted in prosecution under the law, and the Prime Minister's five-point programme was committed to the complete elimination of all types of exploitation of labour, such as forced labour.

Referring to the comments on Convention No. 105, he considered that the conviction of offenders by force of law for specified offences which were liable to rigorous imprisonment did not, in the strict sense of the word, amount to forced labour, because rigorous imprisonment did not involve the forcible use of prisoners on projects such as excavation work, road and dam construction or tree-felling, but aimed at teaching them skills and providing vocational training. The prisoner was only obliged to learn a skill on the prison premises. The trades and skills taught in prison-such as cloth- and mat-weaving, carpentry and furniture-making and other cottage industries-aimed at making prisoners useful members of society and many of them, on completion of their sentences, had been rehabilitated as a result of this reformatory aspect of rigorous imprisonment. He stated that no punishment had been inflicted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance during the past few years and that action against workers under the Ordinance took the form not of imprisonment but of administrative measures such as removal from service, cessation of an increment or warnings. Forced labour in the proper sense of the word was forbidden under the national Constitution and it did not exist anywhere in the country.

The Workers' members noted that this oral statement had added nothing to the information already given last year and that the two Conventions had been discussed since 1970. The Committee had shown a great deal of patience because it had been told that an extraordinary situation concerning national security existed involving martial law. This had apparently been lifted in 1986, but there was no official communication to this effect. The same contradictions continued: it was said that there was no forced labour and no penalty for terminating one's employment, but that the provisions in question had to be maintained for emergency situations. This strange attitude did not respond to what had been requested up until now. In 1986 an attempt to help the Government had been made by placing the Committee's concerns in a special paragraph calling on the Government to supply detailed reports on Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 and to bring its legislation into conformity with them. The statement of the Government representative, that the legislation was not applied, could satisfy neither the Committee of Experts nor this Committee. There had been specific requests to repeal and to amend various pieces of legislation which were contrary to the Forced Labour Conventions and these had not been acted upon. Moreover, a very serious problem was facing minority groups which appeared to be subject to forced or compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination, and clear indications on this matter were awaited from the Government. The new democratic rules referred to by the Government representative were to be supported, but that also implied the implementation once and for all of the Conventions for which the Committee had been pleading for so long.

The Employer's members agreed with the Workers' members that the oral information just received did not contain any new substance. Although these matters had been discussed in 1984 and 1986, nothing had changed: the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952 still contained a number of restrictions on the termination of employment which were not compatible with Convention No. 29, and this Act was considered by the Experts to have a very wide field of application. Since the Government representative had said that the Act was not being applied, it should be easy to amend it. The Government representative had stated that such a law should exist for emergency situations, but this was not compatible with the Convention. The Committee of Experts also referred to a memorandum of the International Commission of Jurists to the United Nations alleging cases of forced labour, but the Government representative had made no mention of this. Concerning Convention No. 105, there were a series of laws providing for various forms of punishment, including forced labour, in relation with the expression of political views or with labour discipline and strikes. These were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Government representative had said that prisoners also received vocational training, but this was beside the point; there was no indication whether the Government was prepared to amend or considerably restrict the scope of these laws as had been suggested repeatedly by the Committee of Experts. There were therefore serious grounds for concern which should be reflected in this Committee's conclusions more forcibly than in the past.

The Government representative stated that the security problem which his country had been facing for many years still existed given its geo-political position. His Government was therefore compelled to maintain the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. He had hoped for appreciation of his Government's efforts to restrict its application by removing many industrial units from its purview. In the future, the case of each unit would be examined before renewal took place and, over a period of time, as a result of this policy, the scope of this Act would be restricted to an indispensable reduced area. This was a good, practical and pragmatic beginning towards reducing its scope to the minimum possible, He stated that the concept of rigorous imprisonment had been an integral part of the national law for many decades, not only in Pakistan but also in other countries with the same legal system but which did not have to answer in this Committee because they had not ratified Convention No. 105. He noted that all these aspects should remain under review and, wherever development was possible, it would be given due attention by the Government.

The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that it was due to the pressure of workers that the Government had ratified important Conventions such as those under discussion now. The workers had also pressed for their implementation in spirit and in letter. They had been urging the Government to remedy the contradiction existing between the Conventions and the law. Results had included the creation in 1986 of a tripartite National Labour Welfare commission and the visit of a multidisciplinary ILO mission. Some further very important developments for the workers were the abolition of martial law and the installation of constitutional government over the past one-and-a-half years, as well as the restoration of some fundamental rights and of the right of appeal to the High Court. Much more needed to be done: the Committee of Experts in its 1979 general survey had pointed out that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, was within the scope of the Convention in so far as it was exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of Convention No. 105, and in the case of persons convicted for expressing certain political views, an intention to educate them through labour was contrary to the very terms of the Convention.

The Government representative noted that the Worker member of Pakistan had acknowledged the positive change in the Government's attitude towards labour over the last two years. The right to appeal to higher courts had been restored but it was not possible to eliminate overnight the legacy of the past.

The Workers' members stressed that as long as the substantive legislation was not changed, the right of appeal to the High Court was to no avail. The fact that legislation concerning prison education existed in other countries did not justify the situation under discussion here. Finally, security reasons could not justify the further existence of legislation which did not secure the protection of basic rights under the Conventions.

The Employers' members noted the Government's position that punishment involving forced labour would be maintained because it could serve for vocational training, but had not heard an announcement that any specific changes would be made. They asked the Government representative to supply a copy of the amendments restricting the scope of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 so that an evaluation could be made of the extent to which this Act had been restricted. In all other respects, they noted that Government seemed to maintain its position.

The Government representative undertook to provide the information requested in the report that would soon be sent to the Office, including the names of the industrial units which had been removed from the purview of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Acts, the number of workers involved and the amendments which had been made to the Acts.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report (see under Convention No. 111).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Articles 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For many years, the Committee had been referring to the following provisions which are not in compliance with the provisions of the Convention:

• -sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, under which penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship. The Committee observed that provisions of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001did not appear to be limited in scope to circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons;
• -certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that involves compulsory labour.

The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the above-mentioned provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance and the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, are amended in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its supplementary report that the Ministry of Maritime Affairs is in the process of amending sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance and is preparing a draft Amendment Bill. The Government further indicates that the Law and Justice Division shall formally vet the proposed amendments once approved by the Cabinet. However, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information regarding the measures taken to bring the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, into line with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls the explanations provided in paragraphs 309–312 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of labour discipline”. The Committee also recalls the principle laid down under paragraph 315 of the 2012 General Survey that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes.  The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, which provide for penalties involving compulsory labour for employees for leaving their employment without the consent of the employer or for participating in strikes are amended or repealed without delay. The Committee also firmly hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance will be amended in the very near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes.  The Committee previously noted the Government’s information that, according to sections 32(1)(e) and 67(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, unfair labour practices of a worker, including to commence, continue, instigate or incite others to take part in, or expend or supply money or otherwise act in furtherance or support of, an illegal strike or a go-slow, is liable to imprisonment up to thirty days, which may involve compulsory labour. The Government indicated that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development had decided to discuss this issue at the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee level. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the necessary measures would be taken to repeal or amend the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the explanation under section 32(e) that “go-slow” means an organized, deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output, or the deterioration of the normal quality of workmen acting in a concerted manner and does not include slowing down due to mechanical or technical defect of machinery or defect in power supply. The Government states that forced labour, slavery and all forms of exploitation are forbidden by law and that the only exceptions allowed is compulsory labour as part of punishment ordered by a court of law. Moreover, such works are subject to the condition that it shall not be of a cruel nature or incompatible with human dignity. The Government indicates that this issue will be discussed shortly at the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee in order to reach a consensus with the views of the Government stakeholders, workers’ and employers’ organizations and other social partners.  Recalling that the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having peacefully participated in strikes is incompatible with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 32(1)(e) and 67(3) of the Industrial Relations Act of 2012 into conformity with the Convention either by repealing or amending the above-mentioned provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government on matters raised in previous direct request addressed to it, and otherwise repeats the content of its observation adopted in 2019 which read as follows.

Articles 1(a) and (e) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and as a means of religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that sections 10–13 of the Security of Pakistan Act 1952; sections 5, 26, 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspaper, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance 2002; section 32(2) and (3) of the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002; and sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, provided for restrictions on the expression of political views and provided for penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour in cases of violations. The Committee also referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider bringing any breach of the civil and social rights and liberties beyond the purview of criminal punishment; to limit penalties for such breaches to fines or other sanctions that does not involve compulsory labour; and to confer a special status to prisoners convicted of political offences. The Committee therefore requested the Government to continue its efforts to bring the above-mentioned laws into conformity with the Convention in the near future, and requested the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any information on this matter. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions, either by repealing them, by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines), in order to ensure that no form of compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or oppositions to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Articles 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For many years, the Committee had been referring to the following provisions which are not in compliance with the provisions of the Convention:

• -sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, under which penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship. The Committee observed that provisions of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001did not appear to be limited in scope to circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons;
• -certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that involves compulsory labour.

The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the above-mentioned provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance and the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, are amended in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes an absence of information in the Government’s report on this matter. The Committee notes with regret that despite the comments it has been making for a number of years, the Government has not taken any measures to bring the above provisions in line with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls the explanations provided in paragraphs 309–312 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of labour discipline”. The Committee also recalls the principle laid down under paragraph 315 of the 2012 General Survey that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance that prescribe penalties for breaches of labour discipline under which seafarers may be imprisoned or forcibly returned on board ship to perform duties as well as the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, which impose penalties involving compulsory labour for employees for leaving their employment without the consent of the employer or for participating in strikes are amended or repealed without delay. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted the Government’s information that, according to sections 32(1)(e) and 67(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, unfair labour practices of a worker, including to commence, continue, instigate or incite others to take part in, or expend or supply money or otherwise act in furtherance or support of, an illegal strike or a go-slow, is liable to imprisonment up to thirty days, which may involve compulsory labour. The Government indicated that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development had decided to discuss this issue at the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee level. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the necessary measures would be taken to repeal or amend the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the explanation under section 32(e) that “go-slow” means an organized, deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output, or the deterioration of the normal quality of workmen acting in a concerted manner and does not include slowing down due to mechanical or technical defect of machinery or defect in power supply. The Government states that forced labour, slavery and all forms of exploitation are forbidden by law and that the only exceptions allowed is compulsory labour as part of punishment ordered by a court of law. Moreover, such works are subject to the condition that it shall not be of a cruel nature or incompatible with human dignity. The Government indicates that this issue will be discussed shortly at the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee in order to reach a consensus with the views of the Government stakeholders, workers’ and employers’ organizations and other social partners. Recalling that the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having peacefully participated in strikes is incompatible with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 32(1)(e) and 67(3) of the Industrial Relations Act of 2012 into conformity with the Convention either by repealing or amending the above-mentioned provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Articles 1(a) and (e) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and as a means of religious discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that sections 10–13 of the Security of Pakistan Act 1952; sections 5, 26, 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspaper, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance 2002; section 32(2) and (3) of the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002; and sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, provided for restrictions on the expression of political views and provided for penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour in cases of violations. The Committee also referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider bringing any breach of the civil and social rights and liberties beyond the purview of criminal punishment; to limit penalties for such breaches to fines or other sanctions that does not involve compulsory labour; and to confer a special status to prisoners convicted of political offences. The Committee therefore requested the Government to continue its efforts to bring the above-mentioned laws into conformity with the Convention in the near future, and requested the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any information on this matter. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions, either by repealing them, by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines), in order to ensure that no form of compulsory labour (including compulsory prison labour) may be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or oppositions to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the legislation concerning merchant shipping (Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, which was repealed and replaced by the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001 (No. LII of 2001)), under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee noted, in particular, that under sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and Human Resource Development (Ministry of OP&HRD) has contacted the Ministry of Ports and Shipping to consider amending the above referred provisions, and that the Ministry of Ports and Shipping has confirmed that they have initiated a consultation process for possible amendments. The Committee recalls, referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 309–312 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of labour discipline”. The Committee observes that provisions of sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 referred to above do not appear to be limited in scope to circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to ensure that the above-mentioned provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance are amended by limiting their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons or by repealing the provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that, according to sections 32(1)(e) and 67(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, unfair labour practices of a worker, including to commence, continue, instigate or incite other to take part in, or expend or supply money or otherwise act in furtherance or support of, an illegal strike or a go-slow, is liable to imprisonment up to thirty days, which may involve compulsory labour. The Government is aware that no sanctions involving compulsory labour shall be imposed on workers for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, the Ministry of OP&HRD has decided to discuss this issue at the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee level. The Committee therefore expresses its firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the abovementioned provisions in the Industrial Relations Act 2012, and requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. Political parties. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which gave the authorities wide discretionary powers to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee also noted that the proposal to amend certain laws, including the Political Parties Act 1962, were under consideration. However, the Committee noted the absence of information in the Government’s report in this regard. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Political Parties Act has been replaced by the Political Parties Order 2002, which does not contain any provisions regarding sanctions on individuals.

Article 1(a), (c), (d) and (e). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views, as a means of labour discipline, as a punishment for having participated in strikes, or as a means of religious discrimination. The Committee previously referred to sections 10–13 of the Security of Pakistan Act 1952, sections 5, 26, 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspaper, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance 2002, section 32(2) and (3) of the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 and sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which provide for restrictions on the expression of political views and penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour. The Committee also referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. The Committee further noted that certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that involves compulsory labour.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement in its report that, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development (Ministry of OP&HRD) has submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider the following options to bring the above referred laws in compliance with the Convention at different levels:

• -at the level of civil and social rights and liberties when, in particular, political activities and the expression of political views, the manifestation of ideological opposition, breaches of labour discipline and the participation in strikes are beyond the purview of criminal punishment;
• -at the level of the penalties that may be imposed, when these are limited to fines or other sanctions that do not involve an obligation to work;
• -at the level of the prison system, when the law confers a special status on prisoners convicted of certain political offences, under which they are free from prison labour imposed on common offenders, although they may work at their own request.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue its efforts to bring the abovementioned laws into conformity with the Convention in the near future, and requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 33(2) and (3) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, under which certain violations of the Ordinance (such as broadcasting in the absence of a licence) are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of section 33(2) and (3) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate its scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess its conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as amended, communicated by the Government with its report, under which penalties of rigorous imprisonment for a term of up to seven years (which may involve compulsory labour) may be imposed for the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words; or the display, publication or distribution of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or distribution or playing a recording or visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting, if sectarian hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of sections 8 and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). Work imposed as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. 1. Essential Services (Maintenance Act). For many years, the Committee has been commenting on certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act restricts the right to strike even in non-essential services.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the 1952 Act is applied in a prudent manner and is extended only in extreme cases. While having noted this indication, and referring also to its observation addressed to the Government under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee recalls that all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties may be changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and Convention No. 29. The Committee also recalls, referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as to the explanations provided in paragraph 315 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work that, regardless of the legality of the strike action in question, no sanctions involving compulsory labour should be imposed on workers for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes.

The Committee observes that, pursuant to a constitutional amendment in 2010, labour matters have been transferred to the provinces and that the provincial governments are in the process of developing draft legislation on industrial relations. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to take into account the above explanations in the development of the provincial industrial relations acts. In this respect, it expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal or amend the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and corresponding provincial Acts, so as to ensure that, in conformity with the forced labour Conventions, the workers concerned shall remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice and no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in a strike. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress achieved in this regard.

2. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the legislation concerning merchant shipping (Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, which was repealed and replaced by the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001 (No. LII of 2001)), under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee noted, in particular, that under sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that the above sections of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, pursue a deterrence purpose in order to avoid misconduct endangering the ship or life of persons, the Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 309–312 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, that the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a means of labour discipline”. The Committee observes that provisions of sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 referred to above do not appear to be limited in scope to circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons.

The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal or amend the above provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance (e.g. by limiting their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Communication of texts. The Committee notes the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Rules, 2009, communicated by the Government with its report. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide a copy of the updated text of the Public Safety Act 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted that the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposals to amend other laws, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report contains no information on the new developments in this regard. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that the above laws were framed with the objective to restrict illicit activities which may lead to national security concerns, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

In its earlier comments, the Committee has referred to sections 5 and 28 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, under which a person who edits, prints or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance (for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated by the District Coordination Officer) is liable to penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months. The Committee also noted that similar penalties may be imposed for keeping a printing press without making a declaration (section 26) or for disseminating unauthorized news-sheets and newspapers (section 30).

The Committee notes that in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of a Bill to amend the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which was to be introduced in the National Assembly in 2008, supplied by the Government with its report, the Government expressed its intention “to dismantle restrictions and curbs placed on the media” and stated that “the draconian laws that threatened coercive action against the press will be removed via this bill to begin the process of providing for a free press in Pakistan”. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, so that no penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for expressing political views. It requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether the 2008 Bill referred to above, or any other bill to amend the 2002 Ordinance, has been passed by the National Assembly and to provide a copy of the revised legislation, as soon as it is adopted. Pending the revision, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above sections 26, 28 and 30 of the Ordinance in practice, indicating the penalties imposed and supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions.

Article 1(e). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public whereas, if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

While noting these indications, the Committee recalls, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 303 and 316 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, 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. However, where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, information on the application of these provisions in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Communication of legislation. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the following legislation: the Public Safety Act 1960; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (Amendment) Act 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997.

Article 1(a). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 33(2) and (3) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, under which certain violations of the Ordinance (such as broadcasting in the absence of a licence) are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the application of section 33(2) and (3) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate its scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess its conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Work imposed as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been commenting on certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer or from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply, inter alia, to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. In its comments supplied in 2005, the APFTU reiterated its earlier statement that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act continues to restrict the right to strike even in non-essential services. This view has been shared by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) in its communication received in 2008.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. While having noted this indication, the Committee points out once again that all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties may be changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike, and therefore penalties of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 189 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future, so as to ensure that, in conformity with the Convention, no penal sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for peaceful participation in a strike, and that the Government will report the progress achieved in this regard.

Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the provisions of the legislation concerning merchant shipping (Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, which was repealed and replaced by the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001 (No. LII of 2001)), under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted, in particular, that under sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that penalties of imprisonment may only be awarded by a competent court of law after a trial, the Committee refers to the explanations in paragraph 144 of its 2007 General Survey, where it pointed out that, in the great majority of cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of the Convention (such as in the cases of the exaction of labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping, acts of violence or various acts or omissions that have endangered the life or health of others). But if a person has to perform compulsory prison labour because that person holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention, which prohibits the use “of any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a means of coercion, education or punishment for violation of labour discipline.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that, after several decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal or amend these provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance which prescribe penalties of imprisonment for breaches of labour discipline (e.g. by limiting their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(a). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) and the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, which gave the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee previously noted the adoption of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which had repealed the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. It noted, in particular, the provisions of sections 5 and 28 of the 2002 Ordinance, under which a person who edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance (for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated by the District Coordination Officer) is liable to penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken with a view to bringing these provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, so that no penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for expressing political views. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of sections 5 and 28 in practice, indicating the penalties imposed and supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions. Please also communicate a copy of any rules issued under section 44 of the 2002 Ordinance.

As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, referred to above, the Committee previously noted that the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposals to amend other laws, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. Noting that the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this subject, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Committee’s concerns will be taken into account by the Law and Justice Commission and that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions, indicating the number of convictions and supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions.

Article 1(e). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. The Committee previously noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government also stated that the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government further indicated that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

While noting these indications, the Committee points out once again, referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 154 and 190 of its 2007 General Survey, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of these provisions in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Communication of legislation. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the following legislation: the Public Safety Act 1960; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (Amendment) Act 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997.

Article 1(a). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 33(2) and (3) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, under which certain violations of the Ordinance (such as broadcasting in the absence of a licence) are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the application of section 33(2) and (3) in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate its scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess its conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. Work imposed as a means of labour discipline and as a punishment for having participated in strikes. For a number of years, the Committee has been commenting on certain provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, under which employees are prohibited from leaving their employment without the consent of the employer or from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply, inter alia, to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. In its comments supplied in 2005, the APFTU reiterated its earlier statement that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act continues to restrict the right to strike even in non-essential services. This view has been shared by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) in its communication received in 2008.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. While having noted this indication, the Committee points out once again that all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties may be changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike, and therefore penalties of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 189 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future, so as to ensure that, in conformity with the Convention, no penal sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for peaceful participation in a strike, and that the Government will report the progress achieved in this regard.

2. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the provisions of the legislation concerning merchant shipping (Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, which was repealed and replaced by the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001 (No. LII of 2001)), under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted, in particular, that under sections 204, 206, 207 and 208 of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, penalties of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may be imposed in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, and seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that penalties of imprisonment may only be awarded by a competent court of law after a trial, the Committee refers to the explanations in paragraph 144 of its 2007 General Survey, where it pointed out that, in the great majority of cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of the Convention (such as in the cases of the exaction of labour from common offenders convicted, for example, of robbery, kidnapping, acts of violence or various acts or omissions that have endangered the life or health of others). But if a person has to perform compulsory prison labour because that person holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention, which prohibits the use “of any form” of forced or compulsory labour as a means of coercion, education or punishment for violation of labour discipline.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that, after several decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal or amend these provisions of the 2001 Merchant Shipping Ordinance which prescribe penalties of imprisonment for breaches of labour discipline (e.g. by limiting their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(a). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) and the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, which gave the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee previously noted the adoption of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which had repealed the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. It noted, in particular, the provisions of sections 5 and 28 of the 2002 Ordinance, under which a person who edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance (for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated by the District Coordination Officer) is liable to penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken with a view to bringing these provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, into conformity with Article 1(a) of the Convention, so that no penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for expressing political views. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of sections 5 and 28 in practice, indicating the penalties imposed and supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions. Please also communicate a copy of any rules issued under section 44 of the 2002 Ordinance.

As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, referred to above, the Committee previously noted that the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposals to amend other laws, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. Noting that the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this subject, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Committee’s concerns will be taken into account by the Law and Justice Commission and that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions, indicating the number of convictions and supplying sample copies of the relevant court decisions.

Article 1(e). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to three years. The Committee previously noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government also stated that the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government further indicated that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

While noting these indications, the Committee points out once again, referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 154 and 190 of its 2007 General Survey, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of these provisions in practice, including sample copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1, subparagraphs c and d, of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance, which provides for the offence of illegal strike. The Committee notes that, while the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, has removed the penalties of imprisonment contained in the 1969 Ordinance, the provisions referred to above have been retained and are now contained in sections 39(3) and 72 of the IRO. The Committee therefore asks once again that the Government indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

2. Article 1, subparagraphs a and e. The Committee notes that, under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issues broadcast licenses to broadcasters or CTV operators subject to obligations, among others, to: “respect the national, cultural, social and religious values and the principles of public policy as enshrined in the Constitution” of Pakistan (section 20(b)); ensure the programme and advertisement do not encourage sectarianism or militancy (section 20(c)), and broadcast or distribute programmes “in the public interest specified by the Federal Government [or PEMRA] in the manner indicated by the Government” (section 20(e)), and that repeat violations of the Ordinance or broadcasting in the absence of a license is punishable with imprisonment (that may involve compulsory labour) (section 33(2) and (3)). The Committee also notes the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, under which the publication of defamatory statements is criminalized and, where proved to have occurred, subjects defendants to penalties that may include three months imprisonment (section 9), and that the Ordinance shall not prejudice any action for criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force (section 11).

3. Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133–141 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (such as laws on defamation, sedition and subversion, public order and security). But where the restrictions of these rights and freedoms are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, it falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the abovementioned legislation, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to supply a copy of the text of applicable rules promulgated under section 39 of the PEMRO.

4. Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act 1960, and it also requests the Government to supply a copy of the following: the Banking Companies Ordinance 2002; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (amendment) Act 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act 1997.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

I. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not yet responded to the observations made in 2001 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (now the International Trade Union Confederation, ITUC), and in 2005 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were forwarded to the Government in 2001 and 2005 respectively. The Committee also notes a new communication received from the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (dated 21 September 2008), which was sent to the Government in October 2008 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to supply its comments concerning all the abovementioned communications of workers’ organizations in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

II. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Forced or compulsory labour as punishment for breach of contract or participation in strikes in non-essential services.  In earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (ESA), 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee has also noted previous comments, made under the Convention by the APFTU, according to which the Government has applied provisions of the ESA to workers employed in non-essential services, including various public utilities such as the Water and Power Distribution Authority (WAPDA), the Karachi Port Trust, and Sui Gas, as well as railways and telecommunications, and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike.

The Committee notes the indication of the Worker member of Pakistan, in the Conference Committee at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002, that management in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, and in the telecommunications and railway industries generally, had been making use of the provisions of the ESA to prevent workers from presenting their legitimate demands and to refuse any type of social dialogue. He referred in particular to workers in Quetta who had gone on strike and been arrested. The Committee also notes, from the APFTU communication dated 26 April 2005, the indication that the provisions of the ESA continue to be applied to ban strikes in non-essential services.

The Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that, while that the Act has remained on the books, that most public sector organizations to which the ESA was applied were undergoing privatization, including WAPDA and the telecommunications and oil and gas sectors, and that the Act would therefore no longer be applicable when those organizations had been fully privatized. The Committee notes from its latest report the Government’s indication, which it has repeated for a number of years, that the provisions of the ESA are applied restrictively.

The Committee points out once again, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments to the Government on its application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that the ESA includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term, including, among others, oil production, postal services, railways, airways, and ports, and it has for some time requested that the Government amend the ESA so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee refers the Government to its comments under Convention No. 87 on this point. It reiterates its firm hope that the ESA, and corresponding provincial Acts, will be repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

Forcible return of seafarers on board ship. The Committee has, from the time of the Government’s ratification of the Convention in 1960, referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (PMSO), 2001 (No. LII of 2001). It observes that the PMSO still contains provisions, particularly sections 204, 206, 207, and 208, which would permit, in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, the imposition of sanctions involving the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship, as well as imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897). The Committee regrets that, after decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the Government has promulgated new legislation without eliminating the divergences between its national legislation and the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will amend or repeal without delay those provisions of the 2001 Ordinance that prescribe penalties for breaches of labour discipline under which seafarers may be imprisoned or forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. The Government is also asked to provide a copy of the implementing rules or regulations promulgated under section 603 of the 2001 Ordinance.

Article 1(a) and (e). Forced labour as a means of political coercion. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56 and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the promulgation of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which repeals the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (section 45). Under the registration provisions of the 2002 Ordinance, a District Coordination Officer must deny authentication of a declaration, which must be made as a prerequisite for publication of a newspaper, in cases where the declaration has been filed by a person convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or for wilful default of public dues (section 10(2)(c)). Where the District Coordination Officer fails to take action to authenticate or to pass an order denying authentication of a declaration within a period of 30 days, the declaration is deemed to be authenticated (section 10(4)). Anyone who, among other things, edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance – for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated – is liable to punishment involving a sanction of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months (sections 5 and 28). Referring to paragraph 133 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate in relation to the abovementioned provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that no form of forced or compulsory labour (including labour exacted as a consequence of a sentence of imprisonment) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 5, 10(2)(c), 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, including the number of persons arrested and convicted under these provisions, as well as the particulars of any judicial decisions which may serve to define or clarify the effect of the abovementioned provisions. The Government is also requested to supply a copy of the text of any rules promulgated under section 44 of the Ordinance to implement it.

As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that the application of these statutes was extremely restrictive. The Committee also notes from the Annual Reports of 2003 and 2005 of the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, as well as its Report No. 56, that the Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had approved and drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposed reforms to other legislation, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. The Committee hopes that the concerns of the Committee will be taken into consideration in the work of the Law and Justice Commission. More generally, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is requested to supply updated information on their practical application, including the cases registered, the number of convictions, and copies of any relevant court decisions.

The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government has indicated, with reference to the non-conformity with the Convention of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, that “Pakistan is serving in the front line of the war against terrorism and in retaliation the unscrupulous elements off and on try to disrupt the supply chain of oil as well as natural gas to make stand still the whole economy of the country”. It notes the similar indication by the representative of the Government in the Conference Committee in June 2002, with reference to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, that Pakistan “was in the forefront of the fight against terrorism and faced very difficult political circumstances”, and that under the present circumstances any change to the existing laws might not be feasible, particularly those related to the security of the country. The Committee observes that these laws, as well as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, have been the subject of comments by the Committee ever since the Government ratified the Convention in 1960, and that they have also been the subject of numerous discussions in the Conference Committee. The Committee would also like to point out that, if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

The Committee hopes that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will at long last take the necessary measures to bring the provisions of the national legislation mentioned above into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved.

The use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is subject to punishment with imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term that may extend to three years.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statements in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. In the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates that it firmly hopes the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee requests that in its next report the Government provide updated and detailed factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including a record of cases registered, the number of persons convicted, and copies of court decisions.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. 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:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance, which provides for the offence of illegal strike. The Committee notes that, while the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, has removed the penalties of imprisonment contained in the 1969 Ordinance, the provisions referred to above have been retained and are now contained in sections 39(3) and 72 of the IRO. The Committee therefore asks once again that the Government indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

2. Article 1(a) and (e). The Committee notes that, under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issues broadcast licenses to broadcasters or CTV operators subject to obligations, among others, to: “respect the national, cultural, social and religious values and the principles of public policy as enshrined in the Constitution” of Pakistan (section 20(b)); ensure the programme and advertisement do not encourage sectarianism or militancy (section 20(c)), and broadcast or distribute programmes “in the public interest specified by the Federal Government [or PEMRA] in the manner indicated by the Government” (section 20(e)), and that repeat violations of the Ordinance or broadcasting in the absence of a license is punishable with imprisonment (that may involve compulsory labour) (section 33(2) and (3)). The Committee also notes the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, under which the publication of defamatory statements is criminalized and, where proved to have occurred, subjects defendants to penalties that may include three months imprisonment (section 9), and that the Ordinance shall not prejudice any action for criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force (section 11).

3. Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133–141 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (such as laws on defamation, sedition and subversion, public order and security). But where the restrictions of these rights and freedoms are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, it falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the abovementioned legislation, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to supply a copy of the text of applicable rules promulgated under section 39 of the PEMRO.

4. Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act 1960, and it also requests the Government to supply a copy of the following: the Banking Companies Ordinance 2002; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (amendment) Act 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act 1997.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

I. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not yet responded to the observations made in 2001 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (now the International Trade Union Confederation, ITUC), and in 2005 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were forwarded to the Government in 2001 and 2005 respectively. The Committee also notes a new communication received from the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (dated 21 September 2008), which was sent to the Government in October 2008 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to supply its comments concerning all the abovementioned communications of workers’ organizations in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

II. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Forced or compulsory labour as punishment for breach of contract or participation in strikes in non-essential services. 1. In earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (ESA), 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee has also noted previous comments, made under the Convention by the APFTU, according to which the Government has applied provisions of the ESA to workers employed in non-essential services, including various public utilities such as the Water and Power Distribution Authority (WAPDA), the Karachi Port Trust, and Sui Gas, as well as railways and telecommunications, and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike.

2. The Committee notes the indication of the Worker member of Pakistan, in the Conference Committee at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002, that management in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, and in the telecommunications and railway industries generally, had been making use of the provisions of the ESA to prevent workers from presenting their legitimate demands and to refuse any type of social dialogue. He referred in particular to workers in Quetta who had gone on strike and been arrested. The Committee also notes, from the APFTU communication dated 26 April 2005, the indication that the provisions of the ESA continue to be applied to ban strikes in non-essential services.

3. The Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that, while that the Act has remained on the books, that most public sector organizations to which the ESA was applied were undergoing privatization, including WAPDA and the telecommunications and oil and gas sectors, and that the Act would therefore no longer be applicable when those organizations had been fully privatized. The Committee notes from its latest report the Government’s indication, which it has repeated for a number of years, that the provisions of the ESA are applied restrictively.

4. The Committee points out once again, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments to the Government on its application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that the ESA includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term, including, among others, oil production, postal services, railways, airways, and ports, and it has for some time requested that the Government amend the ESA so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee refers the Government to its comments under Convention No. 87 on this point. It reiterates its firm hope that the ESA, and corresponding provincial Acts, will be repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), under which, whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which has repealed the 1969 Ordinance (section 80). The Committee notes with interest, from the indications of the Government in its latest report, as well as the text of sections 65, 66, and 67 of the IRO, that the penalties of imprisonment have been eliminated.

Forcible return of seafarers on board ship. 6. The Committee has, from the time of the Government’s ratification of the Convention in 1960, referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (PMSO), 2001 (No. LII of 2001). It observes that the PMSO still contains provisions, particularly sections 204, 206, 207, and 208, which would permit, in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, the imposition of sanctions involving the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship, as well as imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897). The Committee regrets that, after decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the Government has promulgated new legislation without eliminating the divergences between its national legislation and the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will amend or repeal without delay those provisions of the 2001 Ordinance that prescribe penalties for breaches of labour discipline under which seafarers may be imprisoned or forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. The Government is also asked to provide a copy of the implementing rules or regulations promulgated under section 603 of the 2001 Ordinance.

Article 1(a) and (e). Forced labour as a means of political coercion. 7. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56 and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

8. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which repeals the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (section 45). Under the registration provisions of the 2002 Ordinance, a District Coordination Officer must deny authentication of a declaration, which must be made as a prerequisite for publication of a newspaper, in cases where the declaration has been filed by a person convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or for wilful default of public dues (section 10(2)(c)). Where the District Coordination Officer fails to take action to authenticate or to pass an order denying authentication of a declaration within a period of 30 days, the declaration is deemed to be authenticated (section 10(4)). Anyone who, among other things, edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance – for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated – is liable to punishment involving a sanction of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months (sections 5 and 28). Referring to paragraph 133 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate in relation to the abovementioned provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that no form of forced or compulsory labour (including labour exacted as a consequence of a sentence of imprisonment) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 5, 10(2)(c), 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, including the number of persons arrested and convicted under these provisions, as well as the particulars of any judicial decisions which may serve to define or clarify the effect of the abovementioned provisions. The Government is also requested to supply a copy of the text of any rules promulgated under section 44 of the Ordinance to implement it.

9. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that the application of these statutes was extremely restrictive. The Committee also notes from the Annual Reports of 2003 and 2005 of the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, as well as its Report No. 56, that the Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had approved and drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposed reforms to other legislation, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. The Committee hopes that the concerns of the Committee will be taken into consideration in the work of the Law and Justice Commission. More generally, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is requested to supply updated information on their practical application, including the cases registered, the number of convictions, and copies of any relevant court decisions.

10. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government has indicated, with reference to the non-conformity with the Convention of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, that “Pakistan is serving in the front line of the war against terrorism and in retaliation the unscrupulous elements off and on try to disrupt the supply chain of oil as well as natural gas to make stand still the whole economy of the country”. It notes the similar indication by the representative of the Government in the Conference Committee in June 2002, with reference to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, that Pakistan “was in the forefront of the fight against terrorism and faced very difficult political circumstances”, and that under the present circumstances any change to the existing laws might not be feasible, particularly those related to the security of the country. The Committee observes that these laws, as well as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, have been the subject of comments by the Committee ever since the Government ratified the Convention in 1960, and that they have also been the subject of numerous discussions in the Conference Committee. The Committee would also like to point out that, if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

11. The Committee hopes that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will at long last take the necessary measures to bring the provisions of the national legislation mentioned above into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved.

The use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. 12. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is subject to punishment with imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term that may extend to three years. The Committee has noted the report submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1996 by the Special Rapporteur on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (document E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1 of 2 January 1996), which indicates that, according to many non-governmental sources, the religious activities of the Ahmadi community are seriously restricted, and that many Ahmadis are reported to be prosecuted under section 298C of the Penal Code (paragraph 41). The Committee has also noted the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the State laws related to religious minorities are likely to favour or foster intolerance in society, and that the law applied specifically to the Ahmadi minority is particularly questionable.

13. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statements in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. In the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

14. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates that it firmly hopes the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee requests that in its next report the Government provide updated and detailed factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including a record of cases registered, the number of persons convicted, and copies of court decisions.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance, which provides for the offence of illegal strike. The Committee notes that, while the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, has removed the penalties of imprisonment contained in the 1969 Ordinance, the provisions referred to above have been retained and are now contained in sections 39(3) and 72 of the IRO. The Committee therefore asks once again that the Government indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

2. Article 1(a) and (e). The Committee notes that, under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issues broadcast licenses to broadcasters or CTV operators subject to obligations, among others, to: “respect the national, cultural, social and religious values and the principles of public policy as enshrined in the Constitution” of Pakistan (section 20(b)); ensure the programme and advertisement do not encourage sectarianism or militancy (section 20(c)), and broadcast or distribute programmes “in the public interest specified by the Federal Government [or PEMRA] in the manner indicated by the Government” (section 20(e)), and that repeat violations of the Ordinance or broadcasting in the absence of a license is punishable with imprisonment (that may involve compulsory labour) (section 33(2) and (3)). The Committee also notes the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, under which the publication of defamatory statements is criminalized and, where proved to have occurred, subjects defendants to penalties that may include three months imprisonment (section 9), and that the Ordinance shall not prejudice any action for criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force (section 11).

3. Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133–141 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (such as laws on defamation, sedition and subversion, public order and security). But where the restrictions of these rights and freedoms are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, it falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the abovementioned legislation, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to supply a copy of the text of applicable rules promulgated under section 39 of the PEMRO.

4. Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act 1960, and it also requests the Government to supply a copy of the following: the Banking Companies Ordinance 2002; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (amendment) Act 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act 1997.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

1. The Committee has noted the observations received in September 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning application of the Convention, which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001 for such comments as it might wish to make. The Committee also notes the communication dated 26 April 2005 from the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), which contains comments on the observance of the Convention, and which was forwarded to the Government in June 2005 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee regrets that the Government has not referred to these observations in its latest report and hopes it will do so in its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Forced or compulsory labour as punishment for breach of contract or participation in strikes in non-essential services. 2. In earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (ESA), 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee has also noted previous comments, made under the Convention by the APFTU, according to which the Government has applied provisions of the ESA to workers employed in non-essential services, including various public utilities such as the Water and Power Distribution Authority (WAPDA), the Karachi Port Trust, and Sui Gas, as well as railways and telecommunications, and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike.

3. The Committee notes the indication of the Worker member of Pakistan, in the Conference Committee at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002, that management in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, and in the telecommunications and railway industries generally, had been making use of the provisions of the ESA to prevent workers from presenting their legitimate demands and to refuse any type of social dialogue. He referred in particular to workers in Quetta who had gone on strike and been arrested. The Committee also notes, from the APFTU communication dated 26 April 2005, the indication that the provisions of the ESA continue to be applied to ban strikes in non-essential services.

4. The Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that, while that the Act has remained on the books, that most public sector organizations to which the ESA was applied were undergoing privatization, including WAPDA and the telecommunications and oil and gas sectors, and that the Act would therefore no longer be applicable when those organizations had been fully privatized. The Committee notes from its latest report the Government’s indication, which it has repeated for a number of years, that the provisions of the ESA are applied restrictively.

5. The Committee points out once again, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned – whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services – must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments to the Government on its application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that the ESA includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term, including, among others, oil production, postal services, railways, airways, and ports, and it has for some time requested that the Government amend the ESA so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee refers the Government to its comments under Convention No. 87 on this point. It reiterates its firm hope that the ESA, and corresponding provincial Acts, will be repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

6. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), under which, whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which has repealed the 1969 Ordinance (section 80). The Committee notes with interest, from the indications of the Government in its latest report, as well as the text of sections 65, 66, and 67 of the IRO, that the penalties of imprisonment have been eliminated.

Forcible return of seafarers on board ship. 7. The Committee has, from the time of the Government’s ratification of the Convention in 1960, referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (PMSO), 2001 (No. LII of 2001). It observes that the PMSO still contains provisions, particularly sections 204, 206, 207, and 208, which would permit, in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in “neglect” of duty, the imposition of sanctions involving the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship, as well as imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897). The Committee regrets that, after decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the Government has promulgated new legislation without eliminating the divergences between its national legislation and the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will amend or repeal without delay those provisions of the 2001 Ordinance that prescribe penalties for breaches of labour discipline under which seafarers may be imprisoned or forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. The Government is also asked to provide a copy of the implementing rules or regulations promulgated under section 603 of the 2001 Ordinance.

Article 1(a) and (e). Forced labour as a means of political coercion. 8. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10–13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56 and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

9. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which repeals the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (section 45). Under the registration provisions of the 2002 Ordinance, a District Coordination Officer must deny authentication of a declaration, which must be made as a prerequisite for publication of a newspaper, in cases where the declaration has been filed by a person convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or for wilful default of public dues (section 10(2)(c)). Where the District Coordination Officer fails to take action to authenticate or to pass an order denying authentication of a declaration within a period of 30 days, the declaration is deemed to be authenticated (section 10(4)). Anyone who, among other things, edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance – for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated – is liable to punishment involving a sanction of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months (sections 5 and 28). Referring to paragraph 133 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate in relation to the abovementioned provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that no form of forced or compulsory labour (including labour exacted as a consequence of a sentence of imprisonment) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 5, 10(2)(c), 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, including the number of persons arrested and convicted under these provisions, as well as the particulars of any judicial decisions which may serve to define or clarify the effect of the abovementioned provisions. The Government is also requested to supply a copy of the text of any rules promulgated under section 44 of the Ordinance to implement it.

10. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that the application of these statutes was extremely restrictive. The Committee also notes from the Annual Reports of 2003 and 2005 of the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, as well as its Report No. 56, that the Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had approved and drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposed reforms to other legislation, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. The Committee hopes that the concerns of the Committee will be taken into consideration in the work of the Law and Justice Commission. More generally, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is requested to supply updated information on their practical application, including the cases registered, the number of convictions, and copies of any relevant court decisions.

11. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government has indicated, with reference to the non-conformity with the Convention of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, that “Pakistan is serving in the front line of the war against terrorism and in retaliation the unscrupulous elements off and on try to disrupt the supply chain of oil as well as natural gas to make stand still the whole economy of the country”. It notes the similar indication by the representative of the Government in the Conference Committee in June 2002, with reference to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, that Pakistan “was in the forefront of the fight against terrorism and faced very difficult political circumstances”, and that under the present circumstances any change to the existing laws might not be feasible, particularly those related to the security of the country. The Committee observes that these laws, as well as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, have been the subject of comments by the Committee ever since the Government ratified the Convention in 1960, and that they have also been the subject of numerous discussions in the Conference Committee. The Committee would also like to point out that, if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

12. The Committee hopes that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will at long last take the necessary measures to bring the provisions of the national legislation mentioned above into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved.

The use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. 13. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is subject to punishment with imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term that may extend to three years. The Committee has noted the report submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1996 by the Special Rapporteur on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (document E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1 of 2 January 1996), which indicates that, according to many non-governmental sources, the religious activities of the Ahmadi community are seriously restricted, and that many Ahmadis are reported to be prosecuted under section 298C of the Penal Code (paragraph 41). The Committee has also noted the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the State laws related to religious minorities are likely to favour or foster intolerance in society, and that the law applied specifically to the Ahmadi minority is particularly questionable.

14. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statements in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. In the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

15. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates that it firmly hopes the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee requests that in its next report the Government provide updated and detailed factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including a record of cases registered, the number of persons convicted, and copies of court decisions.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance, which provides for the offence of illegal strike. The Committee notes that, while the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, has removed the penalties of imprisonment contained in the 1969 Ordinance, the provisions referred to above have been retained and are now contained in sections 39(3) and 72 of the IRO. The Committee therefore asks once again that the Government indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

2. Article 1(a) and (e). The Committee notes that, under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRO), 2002, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issues broadcast licenses to broadcasters or CTV operators subject to obligations, among others, to: "respect the national, cultural, social and religious values and the principles of public policy as enshrined in the Constitution" of Pakistan (section 20(b)); ensure the programme and advertisement do not encourage sectarianism or militancy (section 20(c)), and broadcast or distribute programmes "in the public interest specified by the Federal Government [or PEMRA] in the manner indicated by the Government" (section 20(e)), and that repeat violations of the Ordinance or broadcasting in the absence of a license is punishable with imprisonment (that may involve compulsory labour) (section 33(2) and (3)). The Committee also notes the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, under which the publication of defamatory statements is criminalized and, where proved to have occurred, subjects defendants to penalties that may include three months imprisonment (section 9), and that the Ordinance shall not prejudice any action for criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force (section 11).

3. Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133 to 141 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that limitations may be imposed by law on individual rights and freedoms in order to ensure respect of the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (such as laws on defamation, sedition and subversion, public order and security). But where the restrictions of these rights and freedoms are formulated in such wide and general terms that they may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, it falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the abovementioned legislation, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to supply a copy of the text of applicable rules promulgated under section 39 of the PEMRO.

4. Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960, and it also requests the Government to supply a copy of the following: the Banking Companies Ordinance, 2002; the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration (amendment) Act, 2005; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2005; and the most recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997.

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

1. The Committee has noted the observations received in September 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning application of the Convention, which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001 for such comments as it might wish to make. The Committee also notes the communication dated 26 April 2005 from the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), which contains comments on the observance of the Convention, and which was forwarded to the Government in June 2005 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee regrets that the Government has not referred to these observations in its latest report and hopes it will do so in its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

Forced or compulsory labour as punishment for breach of contract or participation in strikes in non-essential services. 2. In earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee has noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (ESA), 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee has also noted previous comments, made under the Convention by the APFTU, according to which the Government has applied provisions of the ESA to workers employed in non-essential services, including various public utilities such as the Water and Power Distribution Authority (WAPDA), the Karachi Port Trust, and Sui Gas, as well as railways and telecommunications, and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike.

3. The Committee notes the indication of the Worker member of Pakistan, in the Conference Committee at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002, that management in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, and in the telecommunications and railway industries generally, had been making use of the provisions of the ESA to prevent workers from presenting their legitimate demands and to refuse any type of social dialogue. He referred in particular to workers in Quetta who had gone on strike and been arrested. The Committee also notes, from the APFTU communication dated 26 April 2005, the indication that the provisions of the ESA continue to be applied to ban strikes in non-essential services.

4. The Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that, while that the Act has remained on the books, that most public sector organizations to which the ESA was applied were undergoing privatization, including WAPDA and the telecommunications and oil and gas sectors, and that the Act would therefore no longer be applicable when those organizations had been fully privatized. The Committee notes from its latest report the Government’s indication, which it has repeated for a number of years, that the provisions of the ESA are applied restrictively.

5. The Committee points out once again, with reference to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned - whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services - must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee also recalls that, in its comments to the Government on its application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it has observed that the ESA includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term, including, among others, oil production, postal services, railways, airways, and ports, and it has for some time requested that the Government amend the ESA so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee refers the Government to its comments under Convention No. 87 on this point. It reiterates its firm hope that the ESA, and corresponding provincial Acts, will be repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

6. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), under which, whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which has repealed the 1969 Ordinance (section 80). The Committee notes with interest, from the indications of the Government in its latest report, as well as the text of sections 65, 66, and 67 of the IRO, that the penalties of imprisonment have been eliminated.

Forcible return of seafarers on board ship. 7. The Committee has, from the time of the Government’s ratification of the Convention in 1960, referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (PMSO), 2001 (No. LII of 2001). It observes that the PMSO still contains provisions, particularly sections 204, 206, 207, and 208, which would permit, in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, such as absence without leave, wilful disobedience, or combining with the crew in "neglect" of duty, the imposition of sanctions involving the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship, as well as imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour by virtue, inter alia, of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897). The Committee regrets that, after decades of comments addressed to the Government on this point, the Government has promulgated new legislation without eliminating the divergences between its national legislation and the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will amend or repeal without delay those provisions of the 2001 Ordinance that prescribe penalties for breaches of labour discipline under which seafarers may be imprisoned or forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. The Government is also asked to provide a copy of the implementing rules or regulations promulgated under section 603 of the 2001 Ordinance.

Article 1(a) and (e)

Forced labour as a means of political coercion. 8. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56 and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

9. The Committee notes the promulgation of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, which repeals the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (section 45). Under the registration provisions of the 2002 Ordinance, a District Coordination Officer must deny authentication of a declaration, which must be made as a prerequisite for publication of a newspaper, in cases where the declaration has been filed by a person convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or for wilful default of public dues (section 10(2)(c)). Where the District Coordination Officer fails to take action to authenticate or to pass an order denying authentication of a declaration within a period of 30 days, the declaration is deemed to be authenticated (section 10(4)). Anyone who, among other things, edits, prints, or publishes a newspaper in contravention of the Ordinance - for instance, without having made a declaration or without having a declaration authenticated - is liable to punishment involving a sanction of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term of up to six months (sections 5 and 28). Referring to paragraph 133 of the General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee asks the Government in its next report to indicate in relation to the abovementioned provisions of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that no form of forced or compulsory labour (including labour exacted as a consequence of a sentence of imprisonment) may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 5, 10(2)(c), 28 and 30 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, including the number of persons arrested and convicted under these provisions, as well as the particulars of any judicial decisions which may serve to define or clarify the effect of the abovementioned provisions. The Government is also requested to supply a copy of the text of any rules promulgated under section 44 of the Ordinance to implement it.

10. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee notes the indications by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 2002 that the application of these statutes was extremely restrictive. The Committee also notes from the Annual Reports of 2003 and 2005 of the Government’s Law and Justice Commission, as well as its Report No. 56, that the Commission, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, had approved and drafted legislative proposals for certain amendments to be made to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and that proposed reforms to other legislation, including the Political Parties Act, 1962, were under consideration. The Committee hopes that the concerns of the Committee will be taken into consideration in the work of the Law and Justice Commission. More generally, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon take the necessary measures to bring the abovementioned provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is requested to supply updated information on their practical application, including the cases registered, the number of convictions, and copies of any relevant court decisions.

11. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government has indicated, with reference to the non-conformity with the Convention of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, that "Pakistan is serving in the front line of the war against terrorism and in retaliation the unscrupulous elements off and on try to disrupt the supply chain of oil as well as natural gas to make stand still the whole economy of the country". It notes the similar indication by the representative of the Government in the Conference Committee in June 2002, with reference to the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, that Pakistan "was in the forefront of the fight against terrorism and faced very difficult political circumstances", and that under the present circumstances any change to the existing laws might not be feasible, particularly those related to the security of the country. The Committee observes that these laws, as well as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, have been the subject of comments by the Committee ever since the Government ratified the Convention in 1960, and that they have also been the subject of numerous discussions in the Conference Committee. The Committee would also like to point out that, if counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, it can nevertheless become a means of political coercion and a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Convention protects these rights and liberties against repression by means of sanctions involving compulsory work, and the limits which may be imposed on them by law need to be properly addressed.

12. The Committee hopes that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will at long last take the necessary measures to bring the provisions of the national legislation mentioned above into conformity with the Convention, and that it will report on progress achieved.

The use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of religious discrimination. 13. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is subject to punishment with imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) for a term that may extend to three years. The Committee has noted the report submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1996 by the Special Rapporteur on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (document E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1 of 2 January 1996), which indicates that, according to many non-governmental sources, the religious activities of the Ahmadi community are seriously restricted, and that many Ahmadis are reported to be prosecuted under section 298C of the Penal Code (paragraph 41). The Committee has also noted the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur that the State laws related to religious minorities are likely to favour or foster intolerance in society, and that the law applied specifically to the Ahmadi minority is particularly questionable.

14. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statements in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. In the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others, and an act that impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

15. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates that it firmly hopes the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee requests that in its next report the Government provide updated and detailed factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including a record of cases registered, the number of persons convicted, and copies of court decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that there have been no cases in which any person could be punished with imprisonment for contravening this section. Noting also the Government’s indication that the laws are being revised and that punishment of imprisonment may be removed from the existing framework of law, the Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the application in practice of these provisions and on any action taken or contemplated to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret 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 observations communicated by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in July 2003 and transmitted to the Government on 5 September 2003, as well as on the following matters raised in its previous observation:

The Committee has noted the observations received in September 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001 for such comments as might be considered appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government will refer to these observations in its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention

1. In its earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour.

2. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention in July 1999 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply, inter alia, to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. The Committee also noted from a report by the ILO South Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team that the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project (in which the World Bank was providing assistance for the construction of a power complex on the Indus river) had been declared by the Government as an essential service, so that the abovementioned restrictions applied to workers on the project.

3. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. The Government also indicated that all workers covered by the Act had joined service without force and the requirement to obey justifiable and lawful orders of the employer did not constitute forced labour. The Committee recalls that, during the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2000, the Government’s representative repeated indications previously given to this Committee to the effect that the Act applied to only six categories of establishments (a reduction from an initial list of ten categories) which were considered truly essential to the life of the community. As regards the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, which had been placed under the Act, the Government’s representative assured the Conference Committee that the application of the Act to this project was a temporary measure. The Government’s representative also informed the Conference Committee that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Act had been placed before the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, and that the Commission’s recommendations would be provided to the ILO and to the social partners when finalized.

4. While noting these indications, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee points out once again that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned - whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services - must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee therefore reiterates firm hope that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5. The Committee previously referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted the Government’s indications in its reports received in 1997 and 1999 that the abovementioned sections of the Act had been reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, with some modifications. The Government indicated in its latest report that the Bill had been converted into Ordinance 2001, which was in the process of enactment. In the Government’s view, the new Ordinance would fulfil the requirements of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted, so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

6. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population. During the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that sections 54 and 55 were placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that the Commission had finalized its recommendations, on the basis of which the draft labour laws were being prepared. It expresses firm hope that the Industrial Relations Ordinance will be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the provisions adopted to this end.

Article 1(a) and (e)

7. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56, and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

8. As regards the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report, as well as the information provided by the Government’s representative to the Conference Committee in June 2000, according to which the Ordinance was repealed in 1988, and the Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance was enacted. However, the Government indicated in its previous report that the latter Ordinance was allowed to lapse in 1997, and since then there had been no such law in force. The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that a new draft press law had been finalized, in consultation with the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspapers’ Editors (CPNE); the Government indicated that the draft was at the vetting stage. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the new press law, as soon as it is adopted.

9. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee previously noted that during the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that both Acts had been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. It noted that the Government’s latest report contained no new information on this subject. The Committee expresses firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken in order to bring the abovementioned provisions of these Acts into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

10. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

11. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institution. According to the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others; an act which impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

12. The Committee previously noted the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock, against a number of persons having used specific greetings. The Committee also noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There was also reference to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years’ imprisonment.

13. The Committee requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions, in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements. The Government indicated in its latest report that five cases had been registered in the district of Attock against persons belonging to Ahmadis: four persons had been acquitted and the conviction of one person had been maintained by the High Court. The Committee also noted the information communicated by the Government on four cases registered against persons belonging to Quadiani group who had been professing and convincing other people to join the group, on the basis of section 298C of the Penal Code: two cases were reported for cancellation, two others were pending trial in the court. The Committee observes that no information has been supplied on court practice which would contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur referred to above.

14. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that there have been no cases in which any person could be punished with imprisonment for contravening this section. Noting also the Government’s indication that the laws are being revised and that punishment of imprisonment may be removed from the existing framework of law, the Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the application in practice of these provisions and on any action taken or contemplated to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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 observations communicated by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in July 2003 and transmitted to the Government on 5 September 2003, as well as on the following matters raised in its previous observation.

The Committee notes the observations received in September 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001 for such comments as might be considered appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government will refer to these observations in its next report.

  Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention

1. In its earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour.

2. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention in July 1999 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply, inter alia, to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. The Committee also noted from a report by the ILO South Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team that the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project (in which the World Bank was providing assistance for the construction of a power complex on the Indus river) had been declared by the Government as an essential service, so that the abovementioned restrictions applied to workers on the project.

3. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. The Government also indicates that all workers covered by the Act join service without force and the requirement to obey justifiable and lawful orders of the employer does not constitute forced labour. The Committee recalls that, during the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2000, the Government’s representative repeated indications previously given to this Committee to the effect that the Act applied to only six categories of establishments (a reduction from an initial list of ten categories) which were considered truly essential to the life of the community. As regards the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, which had been placed under the Act, the Government’s representative assured the Conference Committee that the application of the Act to this project was a temporary measure. The Government’s representative also informed the Conference Committee that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Act had been placed before the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, and that the Commission’s recommendations would be provided to the ILO and to the social partners when finalized.

4. While noting these indications, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee points out once again that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned - whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services - must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee therefore reiterates firm hope that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5. The Committee previously referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted the Government’s indications in its reports received in 1997 and 1999 that the abovementioned sections of the Act had been reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, with some modifications. The Government indicates in its latest report that the Bill has been converted into Ordinance 2001, which is in the process of enactment. In the Government’s view, the new Ordinance fulfils the requirements of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted, so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

6. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population. During the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that sections 54 and 55 were placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that the Commission has finalized its recommendations, on the basis of which the draft labour laws are being prepared. It expresses firm hope that the Industrial Relations Ordinance will be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the provisions adopted to this end.

  Article 1(a) and (e)

7. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56, and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

8. As regards the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report, as well as the information provided by the Government’s representative to the Conference Committee in June 2000, according to which the Ordinance was repealed in 1988, and the Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance was enacted. However, the Government indicated in its previous report that the latter Ordinance was allowed to lapse in 1997, and since then there had been no such law in force. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that a new draft press law has been finalized, in consultation with the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspapers’ Editors (CPNE); the Government indicates that the draft is now at the vetting stage. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the new press law, as soon as it is adopted.

9. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee previously noted that during the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that both Acts had been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. It notes that the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this subject. The Committee expresses firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken in order to bring the abovementioned provisions of these Acts into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

10. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

11. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institution. According to the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others; an act which impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

12. The Committee previously noted the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock, against a number of persons having used specific greetings. The Committee also noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There was also reference to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years’ imprisonment.

13. The Committee requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions, in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements. The Government indicates in its latest report that five cases have been registered in the district of Attock against persons belonging to Ahmadis: four persons have been acquitted and the conviction of one person has been maintained by the High Court. The Committee also notes the information communicated by the Government on four cases registered against persons belonging to Quadiani group who were professing and convincing other people to join the group, on the basis of section 298C of the Penal Code: two cases were reported for cancellation, two others were pending trial in the court. The Committee observes that no information has been supplied on court practice which would contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur referred to above.

14. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that there have been no cases in which any person could be punished with imprisonment for contravening this section. Noting also the Government’s indication that the laws are being revised and that punishment of imprisonment may be removed from the existing framework of law, the Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the application in practice of these provisions and on any action taken or contemplated to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It also notes the observations received in September 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were transmitted to the Government in October 2001 for such comments as might be considered appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government will refer to these observations in its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.

1. In its earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour.

2. The Committee previously noted the comments made under the Convention in July 1999 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), in which it stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply, inter alia, to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. The Committee also noted from a report by the ILO South Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team that the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project (in which the World Bank was providing assistance for the construction of a power complex on the Indus river) had been declared by the Government as an essential service, so that the abovementioned restrictions applied to workers on the project.

3. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. The Government also indicates that all workers covered by the Act join service without force and the requirement to obey justifiable and lawful orders of the employer does not constitute forced labour. The Committee recalls that, during the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2000, the Government’s representative repeated indications previously given to this Committee to the effect that the Act applied to only six categories of establishments (a reduction from an initial list of ten categories) which were considered truly essential to the life of the community. As regards the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, which had been placed under the Act, the Government’s representative assured the Conference Committee that the application of the Act to this project was a temporary measure. The Government’s representative also informed the Conference Committee that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Act had been placed before the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, and that the Commission’s recommendations would be provided to the ILO and to the social partners when finalized.

4. While noting these indications, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee points out once again that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned - whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services - must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise, a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties is changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee therefore reiterates firm hope that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5. The Committee previously referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted the Government’s indications in its reports received in 1997 and 1999 that the abovementioned sections of the Act had been reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, with some modifications. The Government indicates in its latest report that the Bill has been converted into Ordinance 2001, which is in the process of enactment. In the Government’s view, the new Ordinance fulfils the requirements of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted, so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

6. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, either by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population. During the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that sections 54 and 55 were placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that the Commission has finalized its recommendations, on the basis of which the draft labour laws are being prepared. It expresses firm hope that the Industrial Relations Ordinance will be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the provisions adopted to this end.

Article 1(a) and (e)

7. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56, and 59) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

8. As regards the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report, as well as the information provided by the Government’s representative to the Conference Committee in June 2000, according to which the Ordinance was repealed in 1988, and the Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance was enacted. However, the Government indicated in its previous report that the latter Ordinance was allowed to lapse in 1997, and since then there had been no such law in force. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that a new draft press law has been finalized, in consultation with the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspapers’ Editors (CPNE); the Government indicates that the draft is now at the vetting stage. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the new press law, as soon as it is adopted.

9. As regards the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee previously noted that during the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000, the Government’s representative indicated that both Acts had been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. It notes that the Government’s latest report contains no new information on this subject. The Committee expresses firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken in order to bring the abovementioned provisions of these Acts into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

10. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

11. The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institution. According to the Government’s view, the Penal Code imposes equal obligations on all citizens, whatever their religion, to respect the religious sentiments of others; an act which impinges upon the religious sentiments of other citizens is punishable under the Penal Code. The Government indicates that religious rituals referred to in Ordinance No. XX are prohibited only if exercised in public, whereas if they are performed in private without causing provocation to others, they do not fall under the prohibition.

12. The Committee previously noted the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock, against a number of persons having used specific greetings. The Committee also noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There was also reference to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years’ imprisonment.

13. The Committee requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions, in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements. The Government indicates in its latest report that five cases have been registered in the district of Attock against persons belonging to Ahmadis: four persons have been acquitted and the conviction of one person has been maintained by the High Court. The Committee also notes the information communicated by the Government on four cases registered against persons belonging to Quadiani group who were professing and convincing other people to join the group, on the basis of section 298C of the Penal Code: two cases were reported for cancellation, two others were pending trial in the court. The Committee observes that no information has been supplied on court practice which would contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur referred to above.

14. While noting this information, the Committee points out once again, referring also to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

  Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested. The Government stated in its previous report that the requisite information was being prepared and a detailed reply would be submitted to the ILO in due course. The Committee reiterates its hope that such information will be supplied by the Government in its next report.

The Committee also requests the Government once again to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments, as well as of the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in June 2000.

Article 1(c) and (d), of the Convention.  1.  In its earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour.

2.  In comments made under the Convention in July 1999, the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) stated that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply inter alia to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. The Committee also noted from a report by the ILO South Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team that the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project (in which the World Bank was providing assistance for the construction of a power complex on the Indus river) had been declared by the Government an essential service, so that the abovementioned restrictions applied to workers on the project.

3.  The Government reiterates in its report its previous statement that the application of the 1952 Act has been made very restrictive and it is extended only in cases of extreme nature, when peaceful and uninterrupted supply of goods and services to the general public appears to be disturbed. During the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2000, the Government representative repeated indications previously given to this Committee to the effect that the Act applied to only six categories of establishments (a reduction from an initial list of ten categories) which were considered truly essential to the life of the community. As regards the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, which had been placed under the Act, the Government representative assured the Conference Committee that the application of the Act to this project was a temporary measure. The Government representative also informed the Conference Committee that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the Act had been placed before the Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, and that the Commission’s recommendations would be provided to the ILO and to the social partners when finalized.

4.  While noting these indications, the Committee recalls that the abovementioned restrictions under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, apply permanently to all employment under the federal and provincial governments, and local authorities, and any service related to transport or civil defence, and may in addition, be applied by notification, to employment in any autonomous educational body, as well as other employment that the Government considers essential. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee once again points out that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, all the workers concerned - whether in any employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities or in public utilities, including essential services - must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice; otherwise a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties may be changed into service by compulsion of law, which is incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5.  The Committee previously referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. It noted the Government’s indications in its previous report that the abovementioned sections of the Act had been reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, with some modifications. The Government indicates in its latest report that the Bill has been converted into Ordinance 2000, which is in the process of enactment. In the Government’s opinion, the new Ordinance fulfils the requirements of the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary amendments will be adopted, in the near future, so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

6.  In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

7.  The Government previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with what was called "simple imprisonment" which does not involve compulsory labour. In its latest report, the Government confirms the statement made by the Government representative during the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2000 that sections 54 and 55 were placed before the Tripartite Commission on Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws, which was due to finalize its recommendations by August 2000. The Committee reiterates its hope that measures will soon be taken to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the provisions adopted to this end.

Article 1(a) and (e).  8.  In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10 to 13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30), and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

9.  The Committee notes that during the discussion of these matters in the Conference Committee in June 2000 the Government representative repeated the Government’s statement previously made in its report that any punishment under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, would be imposed after a fair trial in a court of law, in which the accused would be given every opportunity to defend and prove their innocence. In this connection, the Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention. It is both a requirement of due process of law and the substance of penal provisions aimed at the punishment of political dissent with sanctions involving compulsory labour which are covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention.

10.  The Government representative also indicated that both Acts referred to above had been brought to the attention of the competent authorities. According to the Government’s latest report, the requisite information will be submitted by the end of 2000. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken in order to bring the abovementioned provisions of these Acts into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

11.  As regards the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indications in its latest report, as well as the information provided by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 2000, according to which it was repealed in 1988, and as a result of a dialogue initiated by the Government with the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE), the Registration of Printing Press and Publication Ordinance, 1988, was enacted. The Government indicates that the 1988 Ordinance, which was repromulgated every 120 days as required under the law, was allowed to lapse in July 1997, as well as the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance, 1996, to which the Government referred in its report received in December 1996, so that at present there is no such law in force. The Government states that it endeavours to enact a new press law after a consensus has been reached on the matter with the newspaper industry, and that the process of consultations with the APNS and the CPNE is still going on. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the ILO informed of the developments regarding the adoption of a new press law and requests the Government to supply a copy thereof, as soon as it is adopted.

12.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

13.  The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship and fundamental rights to minorities living in the country. The Government states that subject to law, public order and morality, the minorities have the right to profess, propagate their religion and establish, maintain and manage their religious institution. The Government previously expressed the view that religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured, and anyone, regardless of religious conviction, will be punished for professing religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. According to the Government, the provisions of the Penal Code referred to above were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, and in order to save the country from grave communal riots.

14.  In its earlier comments, the Committee took note of the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings. The Committee also noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the court of appeal. It was stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There was also reference to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

15.  The Government repeatedly indicated in its earlier reports that the report of the Special Rapporteur was not based on facts. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions, in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements. The Committee observes that the information requested on court practice to contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur has not been supplied.

16.  Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls once again 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. However, where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested. The Government states in its report that the requisite information is being prepared and a detailed reply will be submitted to the ILO in due course. The Committee reiterates its hope that such information will be supplied by the Government in its next report.

The Committee also requests the Government once again to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

I. The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the comments made in July 1999 by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) on the application of a number of the ratified ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 105, which were transmitted to the Government in July 1999 for such comments as might be judged appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government will refer to the APFTU's comments in its next report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments made under the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from leaving their employment, even by giving notice, without the consent of the employer, as well as from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. These restrictions apply permanently to all employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities and any service related to transport or civil defence and may in addition be applied, by notification, to employment in any autonomous educational body, as well as other employment that the Government considers essential. In its comments referred to above the APFTU states that the provisions of the Essential Services Act apply to workers employed in various public utilities such as WAPDA, Railway, Telecommunication, Karachi Port Trust, Sui Gas, etc., and these workers cannot resign from their service and cannot go on strike. The Committee also notes from a report by the ILO South Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team that the Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project (in which the World Bank is providing assistance for the construction of a power complex on the Indus river) has been declared by the Government an essential service, so that the abovementioned restrictions apply to workers on the project.

2. The Government indicated in its report of 1997 that the application of the 1952 Act had been further narrowed, and there were only six categories of establishments which were considered critical for the security of the country and the welfare of the community. This matter was also raised before the Conference Committee in 1999 on which occasion the representative of the Government indicated that the Government was "not proud of this piece of legislation" and that it was only resorted to when situations had reached an "extreme stage". The representative also repeated information previously given to this Committee to the effect that the scope of the Act had been progressively limited to five services. The representative also informed the Conference Committee that amendment of the Act would be considered by the newly established Tripartite Commission on the Consolidation, Simplification and Rationalization of Labour Laws and that the report of this Commission would be available in due course.

3. In its latest report on the Convention, the Government states that the 1952 Act has laid down specific objectives for its application for only a limited time, and the criteria for its application is to secure the defence or security of the country and the maintenance of such supplies or services as are essential to the life of the community. The Government concludes that it may not be possible to repeal the Act which serves to control the disruptive activity and industrial action.

4. While noting these indications, the Committee recalls that, as pointed out above, the essential services legislation applies permanently to all employment under federal, provincial and local authorities and has been applied by notification to a range of other activities whose interruption would not endanger the life, personal safety or health of persons and which are thus not essential services in the strict sense. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 110 and 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline or strikes that impair the operation of essential services in the strict sense or in other circumstances where life and health are in danger; however, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice. The Committee further recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to change a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with both the present Convention and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), likewise ratified by Pakistan. The Committee trusts that the Pakistan Essential Services Act and corresponding provincial Acts will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

5. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed in relation to various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, and seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Government reaffirms its previous indications that the abovementioned sections of the Act have been reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, 1996, with some modifications. The Committee previously observed, however, that section 206 of the new Bill still contains provisions which would permit the imposition of penal sanctions of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, as well as provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned to their ships. Referring once again to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee trusts that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard.

II. The Committee observes that the Government's report does not contain any new information on the following points already raised by the Committee in its previous observation.

Article 1(a) and (e). 6. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Government has repeated that any punishment under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, would be inflicted after fair trial by a court of law in which the accused would be given a full opportunity to defend and prove their innocence.

7. The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention. It is both the requirement of due process of law and the substance of penal provisions aimed at the punishment of political dissent with sanctions involving compulsory labour which are covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention.

8. The Committee noted the Government's indication in the report received in December 1996 that the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance, 1996, had been promulgated, and that efforts had been made in this Ordinance to fulfil the obligations under the Convention. The Committee understood that an Ordinance promulgated under article 89(2) of the Constitution was required to be laid before the National Assembly and would be considered repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation if it was not approved by the Assembly. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would soon provide a copy of the 1996 Ordinance, as well as information on action by the National Assembly to approve the Ordinance and on any measures taken to repeal the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963.

9. In the absence of any new information concerning sections 10 to 13 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and sections 2 and 7 of the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken also to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation. The Committee also once again requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

10. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.

11. The Committee has noted the Government's repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan, and that any law, custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency. According to the Government, religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and anyone, regardless of religious conviction, will be punished for professing religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. The provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, particularly in places of worship. Forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan; all minorities enjoy all fundamental rights and courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

12. The Committee also took note of the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

13. The Committee further noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is also stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There is reference also to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

14. The Committee noted the Government's repeated indications in its reports that the report of the Special Rapporteur was not based on facts. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions, in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

15. The Committee noted that the Government had not supplied the information requested on court practice to contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur. In its report received in December 1996, the Government indicated that the Quadianis were prohibited under sections 298B and 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code from using epithets, descriptions and titles reserved for certain holy personages or places or posing as Muslims, and that the main purpose of this restriction was to differentiate them and prohibit them from preaching the religion as Islam after they have been declared non-Muslim. It would appear to the Committee that a restriction imposed for this main purpose and enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour falls within the scope of Article 1(a) and (e) of the Convention, which prohibits the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing views opposed to the established political or social system or as a means of social or religious discrimination.

16. The Government further stated in its report received in December 1996 that the Ahmadis had been accorded all rights and privileges guaranteed to non-Muslim minorities under the Constitution and laws of Pakistan, but that some religious practices of Ahmadis are similar to those of Muslims which arouse resentment among the latter and thus pose a threat to public order and safety. Consequently, the Government considered that it had to take certain legislative and administrative measures in order to maintain the peace.

17. The Committee took due note of these indications. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that, as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, limitations may be imposed by law on the rights and freedoms enumerated in it "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society". Thus, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention.

18. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). 19. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

20. The Government previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with what was called "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990. The Government had since indicated in its reports, up to that received in December 1996, that the proposed amendment was under active consideration. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

(The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 88th Session and to report in detail in 2000.)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

With reference to its observation, the Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested. The Government states in its latest report received in September 1997 that the provincial governments and the concerned federal agencies have been asked to provide the requisite information. The Committee hopes that such information will be supplied by the Government in its next report.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960, with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

I. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report received in September 1997.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, prohibit employees from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. They apply permanently to all employment under the federal and provincial governments and local authorities and, in particular, any service related to transport or, by notification, employment in any autonomous educational body. The Government states in its report that the application of the 1952 Act has been further narrowed, and there are now only six categories of establishment which are considered critical for the security of the country and the welfare of the community.

2. The Committee points out once again that Article 1(d) would not apply where the sanction is imposed not for participation in a strike as such but for the fact of endangering the life, personal safety or health of persons through a strike in a truly essential service. However, the scope of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act does not appear to be limited to such services. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the Act will be either repealed or amended in the near future so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the repeated assurances given by the Government that sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, providing for the imposition of compulsory labour in relation with various breaches of labour discipline by seafarers, would be amended. The Government indicates in its latest report that the above-mentioned sections of the Act have been softened and reintroduced in the Merchant Shipping Bill, 1996, with some modifications. The Committee observes, however, that section 206 of the new Bill still contains provisions which would permit the imposition of penal sanctions of imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour) in respect of various breaches of labour discipline, as well as provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned to their ship. Referring to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on action taken to this end.

II. The Committee observes that the Government's report does not contain any new information on the following points already raised by the Committee in its previous observation:

Article 1(a) and (e). 4. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Government has repeated that any punishment under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, would be inflicted after fair trial by a court of law in which the accused would be given a full opportunity to defend and prove their innocence.

5. The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention. It is both the requirement of due process of law and the substance of penal provisions aimed at the punishment of political dissent with sanctions involving compulsory labour which are covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention.

6. The Committee noted the Government's indication in the report received in December 1996 that the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance, 1996, had been promulgated, and that efforts had been made in this Ordinance to fulfil the obligations under the Convention. The Committee understood that an Ordinance promulgated under article 89(2) of the Constitution was required to be laid before the National Assembly and would be considered repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation if it was not approved by the Assembly. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would soon provide a copy of the 1996 Ordinance, as well as information on action by the National Assembly to approve the Ordinance and on any measures taken to repeal the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963.

7. In the absence of any new information concerning sections 10 to 13 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and sections 2 and 7 of the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken also to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved. Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation. The Committee also once again requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

8. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles is punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

9. The Committee has noted the Government's repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan, and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency. According to the Government, religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and anyone, regardless of religious conviction, will be punished for professing religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. The provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, particularly in places of worship. Forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan; all minorities enjoy all fundamental rights and courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

10. The Committee had also taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990), referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

11. The Committee further noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) that nine persons were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, and that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge, the sentence being upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is also stated that the Ahmadi daily newspaper had been banned during the past four years, its editor, publisher and printer indicted, and Ahmadi books and publications banned and confiscated. There is reference also to the sentencing under sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

12. The Committee noted the Government's repeated indications in its reports that the report of the Special Rapporteur was not based on facts. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted and copies of court decisions in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

13. The Committee noted that the Government had not supplied the information requested on court practice to contradict the findings of the Special Rapporteur. In its report received in December 1996, the Government indicated that the Quadianis were prohibited under sections 298B and 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code from using epithets, descriptions and titles reserved for certain Holy Personages or places or posing as Muslims, and that the main purpose of this restriction was to differentiate them and prohibit them from preaching the religion as Islam after they have been declared non-Muslim. It would appear to the Committee that a restriction imposed for this main purpose and enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour falls within the scope of Article 1(a) and (e) of the Convention, which prohibits the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing views opposed to the established political or social system or as a means of social or religious discrimination.

14. The Government further stated in its report received in December 1996 that the Ahmadis had been accorded all rights and privileges guaranteed to non- Muslim minorities under the Constitution and laws of Pakistan, but that some religious practices of Ahmadis are similar to those of Muslims which arouse resentment among the latter and thus pose a threat to public order and safety. Consequently, the Government considered that it had to take certain legislative and administrative measures so as to maintain the peace.

15. The Committee took due note of these indications. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalled that, as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, limitations may be imposed by law on the rights and freedoms enumerated in it "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society". Thus, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention.

16. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). 17. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

18. The Government previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with what was called "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990. The Government had since indicated in its reports, up to that received in December 1996, that the proposed amendment was under active consideration. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the Government's reports received in March and December 1996 contain no new information in reply to its previous direct request. The Committee therefore hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) and (d). In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee noted the indication in the Government's reports covering the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1995 that no case had yet come to the Government's notice whereby criminal law was resorted to as a punishment for contravention of section 46A(3) of the Ordinance. The Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the practical application of the provisions in question and on any action taken or contemplated at an appropriate occasion, to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee has noted the Government's repeated indication in its report that a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960, will be supplied to the ILO.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide it with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's reports received in March and December 1996.

I. Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30), and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7), which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

In its reports received in March and December 1996, the Government repeats its earlier indications that punishment under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1953, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, would be inflicted after fair trial by a court of law and the accused would be given full opportunity to defend and prove his innocence.

The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention. It is not merely the requirement of due process of law but rather the substance of penal provisions aimed at the punishment of political dissent with sanctions involving compulsory labour which is covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in the report received in December 1996 that the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance, 1996, has been promulgated, and that efforts have been made in this Ordinance to fulfil the obligations under the Convention. The Committee understands that an Ordinance promulgated under article 89(2) of the Constitution is required to be laid before the National Assembly and shall be considered repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation if not approved by the Assembly. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon provide a copy of the 1996 Ordinance, as well as information on action by the National Assembly to approve the Ordinance, and on any measures taken to repeal the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963.

In the absence of any new information concerning sections 10 to 13 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, and sections 2 and 7 of the Political Parties Act, 1962, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken also to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved.

Pending action to amend these provisions, the Government is again requested to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

The Committee also once more requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

2. Article 1(a) and (e). In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

The Committee has noted the Government's repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan, and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

According to the Government, religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and anyone, regardless of his religious conviction, will be punished for professing his religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. The provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, particularly in places of worship. Forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan, all minorities enjoy all fundamental rights and courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

The Committee had also taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990) referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

The Committee further noted from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Human Rights Commission in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) the allegations that nine persons were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge and that the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is also alleged that the Ahmadi daily newspaper has been banned during the past four years and its editor, publisher and printer have been indicted; Ahmadi books and publications have been banned and confiscated. Allegations also refer to the sentencing under section 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

The Committee noted the Government's repeated indications in its reports that the report of the Special Rapporteur was not based on facts. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code, including the number of persons convicted thereunder and copies of court decisions made thereunder in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, as well as copies of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied the information requested on court practice to disprove the allegations noted by the Special Rapporteur. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Quadianis were prohibited under sections 298B and 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code to use epithets, description and titles reserved for certain Holy Personages or places or posing themselves as Muslims, and that the main purpose of this restriction was to differentiate them and to prohibit them to preach the religion/faith as Islam after they were declared as non-Muslim. It would appear to the Committee that a restriction imposed for this main purpose and enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour falls within the scope of Article 1(a) and (e) of the Convention, which prohibits the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing views opposed to the established political or social system or as a means of social or religious discrimination.

The Government further states in its latest report that the Ahmadis have been accorded all rights and privileges guaranteed to non-Muslim minorities under the Constitution and laws of Pakistan, but that some religious practices of Ahmadis are similar to those of Muslims which arouse resentment among the latter and thus pose a threat to public order and safety. Consequently, the Government considers that it had to take certain legislative and administrative measures so as to maintain sectarian peace.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 133 and 141 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that, as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, limitations may be imposed by law on the rights and freedoms enumerated in it "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society". Thus, 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 where punishment involving compulsory labour is aimed at the peaceful expression of religious views, or where such punishment (for whatever offence) is meted out more severely, or even exclusively, to certain groups defined in social or religious terms, this falls within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in relation to sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code to ensure the observance of the Convention.

3. Article 1(d). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and corresponding provincial Acts, which apply permanently to employment of whatever nature under the federal Government and provincial governments and any agency set up by the latter or a local authority and, inter alia, to any service related to transport, and which may in addition be applied by notification, inter alia, to employment in any educational autonomous body, employees are prohibited from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour.

The Government states in its report received in December 1996 that the Act of 1952 is applicable to essential employments only for the purpose of securing the defence or security of the country and for the uninterrupted supplies and services essential to the life of the community, and that strikes are prohibited because the Government feels that if essential services are disrupted, the life of the community as a whole will be in danger. It also indicates that the list of essential services covered by the Act is minimum, and that the Government has adopted the policy of constant review and check of this list.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It recalls that the Convention in Article 1(d) prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. None the less, the Committee has considered that Article 1(d) would not apply where the sanction is not imposed for the participation in a strike as such, but for the fact of endangering the life, personal safety or health of persons through a strike in a truly essential service. However, as recalled above, the scope of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Acts is far from being limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of persons. Referring also to Part III of its observation under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee trusts that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Acts will be either repealed or amended so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

II. The Committee observes that the Government's reports received in March and December 1996 do not contain any new information on the following points already raised by the Committee in its previous observation.

4. Article 1(c). In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Government previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990. The Government has since indicated in its reports, up to the latest one received in December 1996, that the proposed amendment was under active consideration. The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

5. Article 1(c) and (d). The Committee notes the repeated assurances given by the Government up to its latest report that sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, providing for the imposition of compulsory labour in relation with various breaches of labour discipline by seamen, will be amended. The Committee hopes that the necessary amendments will at last be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offenses committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on action taken to this end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Article 1(c) and (d). In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee noted the indication in the Government's reports covering the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1994 that no case had yet come to the Government's notice whereby criminal law was resorted to as a punishment for contravention of section 46A(3) of the Ordinance. The Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the practical application of the provisions in question and on any action taken or contemplated at an appropriate occasion, to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee notes the Government's repeated indication in its report that a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960, will be supplied to the ILO.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide it with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's reports and the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 1992.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee has taken note of Presidential Ordinance No. III of 1990 to regulate matters relating to publications and printing presses promulgated under article 89 of the Constitution. The Committee notes that under section 55, the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance No. XXX of 1963 and the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance No. XIII of 1989 were repealed. The Committee observes that an Ordinance promulgated under article 89(2) of the Constitution is required to be laid before the National Assembly and shall be considered repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation if not approved by the Assembly. The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report covering the period ending 30 June 1994 that Ordinance No. III of 1990 had been placed before the National Assembly, but that it could not be passed and it was now being submitted again to the National Assembly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any action by the National Assembly in regard to Ordinance No. III of 1990 and to communicate the text of any law adopted by the Assembly in relation to publications and printing presses.

The Committee notes the Government's indication concerning the Security of Pakistan Act, 1953, and the Political Parties Act, 1962, that the punishment under these Acts would be inflicted after fair trial by a court of law and the accused would be given full opportunity to defend and prove his innocence.

The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention. It is not merely the requirement of due process of law but rather the substance of penal provisions aimed at the punishment of political dissent with sanctions involving compulsory labour which is covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the above-mentioned provisions on security and political parties into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved.

Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee once more requests the Government to supply information on their practical application, including the number of convictions and copies of court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

The Committee also once more requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

Article 1(c). 2. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Government has previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990. The Government has since indicated in its reports, the latest one of which was received in May 1995, that the proposed amendment was under active consideration. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). 3. The Committee notes that once more the Government assures that sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline by seamen may be punished with compulsory labour, will be amended. The Committee hopes that the amendments will finally be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offenses committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the action taken in this regard.

Article 1(d). 4. Referring also to Part III of its observation on Pakistan under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee notes that under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and corresponding provincial Acts, which apply permanently to employment of whatever nature under the federal Government and provincial governments and any agency set up by the latter or a local authority and, inter alia, to any service related to transport, and which may in addition be applied by notification, inter alia, to employment in any educational autonomous body, employees are prohibited from striking, subject to penalties of imprisonment that may involve compulsory labour. The Committee must point out that the Convention in Article 1(d) prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. While the Committee has considered that Article 1(d) would not apply where the sanction is not imposed for the participation in a strike as such but for the fact of endangering the life, personal safety or health of persons through a strike in a truly essential service, the scope of the Essential Services Acts is not limited to such services. The Committee accordingly hopes that these Acts will be either repealed or amended so as to ensure the observance of the Convention, and that the Government will report on the action taken to this effect.

Article 1(e). 5. In previous comments, the Committee has referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

The Committee notes the Government's repeated statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

According to the Government, religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and anyone, regardless of his religious conviction, will be punished for professing his religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. The provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, particularly in places of worship. The Committee also notes that the Government reiterates its earlier stand that forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan, that all minorities enjoy all fundamental rights and that courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

The Committee had taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the Application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990) referring to allegations according to which proceedings were instituted, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

The Committee notes from the report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Human Rights Commission in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) the allegations that nine persons were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge and that the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is also alleged that the Ahmadi daily newspaper has been banned during the past four years and its editor, publisher and printer have been indicted; Ahmadi books and publications have been banned and confiscated. Allegations also refer to the sentencing under section 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest report that the report of the Special Rapporteur is not based on facts. The Committee requests the Government to provide factual information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code including the number of persons convicted thereunder and copies of court decisions made thereunder in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur. The Government is also requested to supply copies of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Referring to its previous comments the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report that it is fully committed to the implementation of the Convention.

The Committee hopes consequently that the Government will provide full information on the following matter.

Article 1(c) and (d). In its previous commments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalties an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee noted the indication in the Government's report for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1987 that no case had yet come to the Government's notice whereby criminal law was resorted to as a punishment for contravention of section 46A(3) of the Ordinance. The Committee again requests the Government to continue supplying information on the practical application of the provisions in question and on any action taken or contemplated at an appropriate occasion, to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960, as indicated in its report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's reports of June 1991 and March 1992.

Compulsory prison labour. In comments made for a great number of years, the Committee has referred to legislation under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed on persons punished for activities falling within the scope of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that imprisonment is not a must and that political persons are simply confined to their residences or detained in jails for a short period; there is no law in the country forcing any person to work and the punishment if any can only be imposed by the courts after a regular trial.

The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention and, in the case of persons convicted for expressing certain political views, an intention to educate them through labour would in itself be covered by the express terms of the Convention. The Committee therefore is bound to raise again the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

As concerns the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, the Committee notes the Government's renewed statement in its report that a Bill to amend the Ordinance is before the National Assembly and that it contains no provisions corresponding to sections 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30 of the Ordinance.

The Committee has taken note of Presidential Ordinance No. III of 1990 to regulate matters relating to publications and printing presses promulgated under article 89 of the Constitution. The Committee notes that under section 55 the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance No. XXX of 1963 and the Registration of Printing Press and Publications Ordinance No. XIII of 1989 were repealed. The Committee observes that an Ordinance promulgated under article 89(2) of the Constitution is required to be laid down before the National Assembly and shall be considered repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation if not approved by the Assembly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any action by the National Assembly in regard to Ordinance No. III of 1990 and to communicate the text of any law adopted by the Assembly in relation to publication and printing presses.

The Committee expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the above-mentioned provisions on security, press and publications and political parties into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will report on progress achieved.

Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee once more requests the Government to supply information on their practical application including the number of convictions and copies of court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

The Committee also once more requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

Article 1(c). 2. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Government has previously indicated that a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been presented to the National Assembly and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990, without indicating that any further progress had been made. The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government merely states that sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are under active consideration for amendment. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). 3. The Committee notes that once more the Government states that a Bill had been introduced in the National Assembly to amend sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline by seamen may be punished with compulsory labour. The Committee hopes that the amendments will finally be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the action taken in this regard.

Article 1(e). 4. In previous comments, the Committee has referred to sections 298B(1) and (2) and 298C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, No. XX of 1984, under which any person of these groups who uses Islamic epithets, nomenclature and titles shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years.

The Committee notes the Government's renewed statement in its reports that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

According to the Government, religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and anyone, regardless of his religious conviction, will be punished for professing his religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. The provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted with a view to ensuring peace and tranquillity, particularly in places of worship. The Committee also notes that the Government reiterates its earlier stand that forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan, that all minorities enjoy all fundamental rights and that courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

The Committee had taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1991 by the Special Rapporteur on the application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990) referring to allegations according to which proceedings were engaged, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

The Committee notes from the latest report by the Special Rapporteur presented to the Human Rights Commission in 1992 (document E/CN.4/1992/52 of 18 December 1991) the allegations that nine persons were sentenced to two years' imprisonment for acting against Ordinance XX of 1984 in April 1990, that another person was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in 1988 for wearing a badge and that the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is also alleged that the Ahmadi daily newspaper has been banned during the past four years and its editor, publisher and printer have been indicted; Ahmadi books and publications have been banned and confiscated. Allegations also refer to the sentencing under section 298B and 298C of the Penal Code of two Ahmadis to several years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 rupees (in the case of failure to pay the fine, imprisonment would be extended by 18 months).

The Committee again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and 298C of the Penal Code including the number of persons convicted thereunder and copies of court decisions made thereunder in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur. The Government is also requested to supply copies of any court ruling that sections 298B and 298C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. 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 matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no answer to its previous direct request. 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:

Article 1(c) and (d). In its previous commments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalities an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee noted the indication in the Government's report for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1987 that no case had yet come to the Government's notice whereby criminal law was resorted to as a punishment for contravention of section 46A(3) of the Ordinance. The Committee again requests the Government to continue supplying information on the practical application of the provisions in question and on any action taken or contemplated at an appropriate occasion, to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee has taken note of the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in 1990. It notes that no report was since received from the Government.

Compulsory prison labour. In comments made for a great number of years, the Committee has referred to legislation under which penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed on persons punished for activities falling within the scope of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the indication by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990 that there was no law in the country forcing any person to work. The provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act did not contemplate any forced labour because punishment under them could only be imposed by the courts after a regular trial.

The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention and, in the case of persons convicted for expressing certain political views, an intention to educate them through labour would in itself be covered by the express terms of the Convention. The Committee therefore is bound to raise again the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee noted with interest from the Government's report for the period 1987-89 that the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, was being replaced by the Registration of Printing Presses and Publications Ordinance which was before the National Assembly and which would contain no provisions corresponding to sections 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. The Committee notes that while this was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990 no further progress was reported towards the adoption of the new Ordinance, nor with regard to amending the Political Parties Act.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring all of the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention, and that copies of the amending legislation will be provided.

Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee once more requests the Government to supply information on their practical application including the number of convictions and copies of court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

The Committee also once more requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

Article 1(c). 2. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Committee noted with interest the statement by the Government in its report for 1987-89 that the Government had presented a Bill to the National Assembly to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance and that it was proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with "simple imprisonment". This was confirmed by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990, without indicating that any further progress had been made. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d). 3. The Committee previously noted the Government's repeated statements that a Bill had been introduced in the National Assembly to amend sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline by seamen may be punished with compulsory labour. Noting the Government representative's corresponding indications to the Conference Committee in 1990, the Committee hopes that the amendments will soon be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee looks forward to learning of the action taken in this regard.

Article 1(e). 4. In previous comments, the Committee has referred to sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, 1984. Under section 298B(1), "any person of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation - (a) refers to or addresses any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as 'Ameer-ul-Mumineen', 'Khalifa-tul-Mumineen', 'Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen', 'Sahaabi' or 'Razi Allah Anho'; (b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as 'Umul-Mumineen'; (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family ('Ahle-bait') of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as 'Ahle-bait'; or (d) refers to, or names, or calls his place of worship as 'Masjid' - shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

Under section 298B(2), any persons of the same groups "who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as 'Azan', or recites 'Azan' as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

Under section 298C, any person of the same groups, "who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls or refers to his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

The Committee had taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by the Special Rapporteur on the application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990). In his report the Special Rapporteur refers to allegations according to which proceedings were engaged, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings.

The Government previously stated that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Committee notes the statement by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1990 reiterating that religious discrimination did not exist and was forbidden by the Constitution and national laws; forced labour as a result of religious discrimination did not exist and minorities including Ahmadis/Quadianis enjoyed all constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Government had not yet received the report of the Special Rapporteur on the application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious Conviction. The report would be examined and detailed information submitted on this issue.

The Committee again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and C, including the number of persons convicted thereunder and copies of court decisions made thereunder in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur. The Government is also requested to supply copies of any court ruling that sections 298B and C are incompatible with constitutional requirements.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no answer to its previous direct request. 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:

Article 1(c) and (d). In its previous commments, the Committee referred to section 62A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which an individual may be arrested by a police officer for contravening section 46A(3) of the Ordinance which provides for the offence of illegal strike and asked the Government to indicate the practical effect of these provisions and to specify what charges and penalities an individual may face once arrested.

The Committee noted the indication in the Government's report for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1987 that no case had yet come to the Government's notice whereby criminal law was resorted to as a punishment for contravention of section 46A(3) of the Ordinance. The Committee again requests the Government to continue supplying information on the practical application of the provisions in question and on any action taken or contemplated at an appropriate occasion, to review them with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention.

Supply of legislation. The Committee again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Public Safety Act, 1960.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. The Committee has also taken note of the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in 1989.

Article 1(a) of the Convention.

1. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to certain provisions in the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (sections 10-13), the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 (sections 12, 36, 56, 59 and 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30) and the Political Parties Act, 1962 (sections 2 and 7) which give the authorities wide discretionary powers to prohibit the publication of views and to order the dissolution of associations, subject to penalties of imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour.

The Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963 is being replaced by the Registration of Printing Presses and Publications Ordinance which is at present before the National Assembly and which will contain no provisions corresponding to sections 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Ordinance when adopted.

In relation to the Security of Pakistan Act and the Political Parties Act, the Government reiterates in its report its earlier indications that for offences under these Acts, rigorous imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform hard labour) is not a must and that offenders may be sentenced to detention or simple imprisonment, both of which do not entail any compulsory labour. The punishment can only be awarded after a regular trial before a court of law, giving the accused the right of defence and facility to prove his innocence. The courts judge the cases according to their merit and award sentences keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence. The Government expresses the view that this does not involve any violation of the Convention.

The Committee takes due note of these indications concerning due process of law. It recalls the Government's indication in an earlier report that, by virtue of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, offences for which a penalty of "imprisonment" is laid down by law may be punished by the courts either by rigorous imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform hard labour) or by simple imprisonment. As pointed out by the Government, in awarding one form of imprisonment or the other, the courts keep in view the nature and gravity of the offence, but not necessarily its bearing on Article 1(a) of the Convention.

The Committee refers again to the explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, where it indicated that compulsory labour in any form, including compulsory prison labour, falls within the scope of the Convention in so far as it is exacted in one of the five cases specified in Article 1 of the Convention and, in the case of persons convicted for expressing certain political views, an intention to educate them through labour would in itself be covered by the express terms of the Convention. The Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

Pending action to amend these provisions, the Committee once more requests the Government to supply information on their practical application including the number of convictions and copies of court decisions defining or illustrating the scope of the legislation.

The Committee also requests the Government to supply an updated copy of the provisions of the Jail Code governing prison labour.

Article 1(c).

2. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969) under which whoever commits any breach of any term of any settlement, award or decision or fails to implement any such term may be punished with imprisonment which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance into conformity with the Convention, by repealing sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance or by repealing the penalties which may involve compulsory labour, or by limiting their scope to circumstances endangering the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Committee notes with interest the statement by the Government in its report that the Government has presented a Bill to the National Assembly to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance and that it is proposed to remove from the provisions of sections 54 and 55 the element of compulsory labour by replacing imprisonment with "simple imprisonment". The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been brought into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d).

3. The Committee previously noted the Governments's statement that a Bill had been introduced in the National Assembly to amend sections 100 to 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline by seamen may be punished with compulsory labour. The Committee notes with interest the Government's statement in its report that amendments are being made so as to remove the element of compulsory labour from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Committee hopes that the amendments will soon be adopted so as to remove the penalties involving compulsory labour from sections 100 and 100(ii), (iii) and (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act (or limit their scope to offences committed in circumstances endangering the safety of the ship or the life, personal safety or health of persons) and to repeal the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Act under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee looks forward to learning of the action taken in this regard.

Article 1(e).

4. In previous comments, the Committee has referred to sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, inserted by the Anti-Islamic Activities of Quadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, 1984. Under section 298B(1), "any person of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves "Ahmadis" or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation - (a) refers to or addresses any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as "Ameer-ul-Mumineen", "Khalifa-tul-Mumineen", "Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen", "Sahaabi" or "Razi Allah Anho"; (b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as "Umul-Mumineen"; (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family ("Ahle-bait") of the Holy Propet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as "Ahle-bait"; or (d) refers to, or names, or calls his place of worship as "Masjid" - shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

Under section 298B(2), any persons of the same groups "who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as "Azan", or recites "Azan" as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

Under section 298C, any person of the same groups, "who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls or refers to his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years".

The Government previously stated that religious discrimination does not exist and is forbidden under the Constitution and the laws of Pakistan and any law, custom or usage having the force of law, so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution, is void to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Committee notes the statement by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1989 that religious freedom exists as long as the feelings of another religious community are not injured and that anyone, regardless of his religious conviction, will be punished for professing his religion in a way that injures the feelings of another community. According to the Government the provisions of the Penal Code referred to were drafted so as to resolve the differences between the Muslim and Ahmadi practices of faith with a view to ensuring peace and tranquility, particularly in public places of worship. The Committee also notes that in its report the Government reiterates its earlier stand that forced labour as a result of religious discrimination does not exist in Pakistan, that all minorites enjoy all fundamental rights and that courts are free to uphold and safeguard the rights of minorities.

The Committee has taken note of the report presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by the Special Rapporteur on the application of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Conviction (document E/CN.4/1990/46 of 12 January 1990). In his report the Special Rapporteur refers to allegations according to which proceedings were engaged, on the basis of sections 298B and C of the Penal Code, in the districts of Guranwala, Shekhupura, Tharparkar and Attock against a number of persons having used specific greetings. The Committee again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of the provisions of sections 298B and C, including the number of persons convicted thereunder and copies of court decisions made thereunder in particular in the proceedings mentioned by the Special Rapporteur. The Government is also requested to supply copies of any court ruling that sections 298B and C are incompatible with constitutional requirements. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 77th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]