All Comments

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Prevention of terrorism regulations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sanctions of imprisonment involved compulsory labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance. It noted that, pursuant to Prevention of Terrorism Regulations No. 1 (sections 3, 4 and 5) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979, penalties of imprisonment might be imposed for offenses defined broadly, such as taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting and causing the dissemination of information linked to the Sri Lanka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. The Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise provides for penalties of imprisonment for a range of activities linked to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization, including attending meetings and the publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5). Noting that the Government had initiated the drafting of new security laws to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance, the Committee requested the Government to report on the progress made in this regard, and to provide information on the application of the above-mentioned provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2 of 2011 in practice.

The Government indicates in its report that the process of repealing and replacing the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 has started and that the draft framework for a Counter Terrorism Act was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in September 2018. In November 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Bill, and recommended that some of its provisions be revised to ensure consistency with the Constitution. The Government specifies that the Bill is currently under review by a specialized committee of the Parliament. The Government further reports that trials are ongoing against 58 persons who have been charged under this Act, and three indictments are pending.

The Committee also notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association stated, in his report of 5 May 2020, that there were allegations regarding the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act against participants in peaceful assemblies (A/HRC/44/50/Add.1, paragraph 40). The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee has emphasized that, while counter-terrorism legislation responds to the legitimate need to protect the security of the public against the use of violence, when drafted in general and broad terms it can become a means of punishing the peaceful exercise of civil rights and liberties, such as the freedom of expression and the right to assembly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the revision of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its related Regulations and hopes that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the provisions of the legislation adopted will not be drafted in terms broad enough that they could be used to punish persons who peacefully opposed the established political, social or economic system, with sanctions involving compulsory labour. It also requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the facts underlying the charges and indictments brought by the competent authorities under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its Regulations. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions of this Act and its Regulations.

2. Penal Code. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 120 of the Penal Code which provides that, whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred towards or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee notes with regret the absence of information from the Government in this regard, despite its requests since 2012. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to indicate whether there have been any convictions under section 120 of the Penal Code, and if so, to provide information on the facts on the basis of which such convictions were handed down and on the specific penalties imposed.

The Committee notes that section 480 of the Penal Code provides for a sentence of imprisonment, a fine or both, for whoever defames another. In addition, pursuant to section 481, whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, may be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment. Section 482 also provides for the possibility of sentencing someone to imprisonment in case of selling or offering for sale any material containing defamatory matter. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how the above-mentioned provisions of the Penal Code are applied in practice to enable it to examine their scope and ascertain that they are not applied under circumstances falling within Article 1(a) of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the number of convictions issued by the courts, the nature of the offences, and the specific penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971) provides that the competent Minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Section 127(2) of the Act sets out that such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Department of Merchant Shipping was in the process of amending the Merchant Shipping Act to comply with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee therefore hoped that the Government would take into account its comments concerning disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers, within the framework of the law review process of the Merchant Shipping Act.

The Government indicates that it will communicate in due course the progress of the initiatives taken by the Ministry of Ports and Shipping. Recalling that the Convention prohibits the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the Committee firmly hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered. The Committee requests the Government to report on the progress made in this regard and, in the meantime, to provide information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provide for procedural requirements for the participation in strikes in essential industries. It noted that, according to section 43(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, breaches of these provisions are punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). It further notes that section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2), 4(1) and 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, provide for certain restrictions on the right to strike, and that violations of these provisions are punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to five years. The Committee noted the Government’s information that discussions on the provisions concerned of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Essential Public Services Act and the Public Security Ordinance would be initiated with the competent authorities in order to fulfil the requirement highlighted by the Committee. The Committee accordingly requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation, in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour could be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes, both in legislation and practice.

The Government indicates that no legal action was initiated for breaches of the above-mentioned sections of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 2018. It states that the repeal of these sections is therefore not considered essential, and that it will report in due course on the progress made in this regard. The Government further points out that section 32(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act only stipulates that strikes in essential services are possible when written notice of intention to commence the strike is given to the employer 21 days prior to the commencement of the strike. The Committee, therefore, underlines that, in accordance with Article 1(d) of the Convention, no sanctions involving an obligation to perform labour (such as compulsory prison labour) should be imposed as a punishment for having peacefully participated in strikes, whether or not the strike has been carried out in contravention of legislative provisions establishing the requirements for the declaration or the conduct of the strikes. In this regard, the Committee also refers to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the national legislation, to ensure that the peaceful participation in strikes may not lead to the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour. It requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Prevention of terrorism regulations. The Committee previously noted the entry into force of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1–5 in 2011 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979. It noted that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)) Regulations No. 1 of 2011 provides a broad definition of offences, including taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting, and causing the dissemination of information, within or outside Sri Lanka, linked to the LTTE or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. This definition also covers any person connected with or concerned in, or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in, any such activities. The offences are punishable with imprisonment of up to 20 years (section 4), and conspiring to commit, attempt, abet, or engage in any conduct in preparation of such an offence is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years (section 5). Additionally, it noted that the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (LRO)) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise imposes penalties of imprisonment of up to 20 years for a range of activities linked to the LRO including attending meetings and the publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5). The Committee observed that the penalty of imprisonment involves compulsory labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance.

The Committee noted the statement of the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) that it was possible that these regulations could be misused or misinterpreted to restrict civil rights and liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Government stated that these regulations are exclusively for the prevention of terrorism in the country and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour would be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that information has not been received from the Attorney General’s department. The Committee also notes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Sri Lanka in 2017 that the Government has initiated the drafting of new security laws, consisting of a national security act, a State intelligence services act and a prevention of organized crimes act, to replace the Preventions of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance (A/HRC/34/54/Add.2, paragraph 35). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on any progress made regarding the adoption of the abovementioned laws to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its regulations. Pending the adoption of such laws, it once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2 of 2011 in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of relevant court decisions.

2. Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that section 120 of the Penal Code provides that whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred towards or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years (involving compulsory labour). It requested information on the application of this provision of the Penal Code. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that this section was not used to penalize the expression of political opinions. If a fraudulent case is brought, the responsible officers or institutions can be penalized and ordered to compensate the affected party. Additionally, the affected party has the right to file a fundamental case with the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Constitution. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that no information has been received from the Attorney General’s department. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code in practice, including information on any convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application, in order to enable the Committee to assess the provision’s conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that, in practice, no form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline had taken place. It also indicated that the Merchant Shipping Authority was developing guidelines with regard to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ministry of Ports and Shipping and the Department of Merchant Shipping have understood the existing inconsistencies and agreed to make the necessary legal amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act. The Ministry of Labour, Trade Union Relations and Sabaragamuwa Development keeps the continuous communication with the abovementioned institutions and any development that has taken place will be communicated to the Committee. The Government also indicates that the Department of Merchant Shipping is in the process of amending the Merchant Shipping Act to comply with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee hopes that in the context of the current law review process, its previous comments concerning disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers will be duly taken in account. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act provide for procedural requirements for the participation in strikes in essential industries, and that section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2), 4(1) and 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, provide for certain restrictions on the right to strike. Violations of the abovementioned provisions are punishable by imprisonment, involving compulsory labour. The Government stated that the Essential Public Services Act of 1979 applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential to the life of the community. The Committee also noted the statement by the NTUF that several pieces of legislation, including the Public Security Ordinance, had become obsolete and were not enforced. However, the NTUF stated that the Government failed to repeal or amend the provisions of legislation which contravenes Articles of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in relation to the provisions concerned of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter will be discussed at the National Labour Advisory Council, and the decision will be communicated to the Committee. The Government also states that, with regard to the issues pertaining to the Essential Public Service Act of 1979 and the Public Security Ordinance of 1947, a dialogue will be initiated with relevant authorities in order to fulfil the requirement highlighted by the Committee. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to revise or repeal the abovementioned provisions, in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes, both in legislation and practice. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Prevention of terrorism regulations. The Committee previously noted the entry into force of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1–5 in 2011 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979. It noted that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)) Regulations No. 1 of 2011 provides a broad definition of offences, including taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting, and causing the dissemination of information, within or outside Sri Lanka, linked to the LTTE or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. This definition also covers any person connected with or concerned in, or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in, any such activities. The offences are punishable with imprisonment of up to 20 years (section 4), and conspiring to commit, attempt, abet, or engage in any conduct in preparation of such an offence is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years (section 5). Additionally, it noted that the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (LRO)) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise imposes penalties of imprisonment of up to 20 years for a range of activities linked to the LRO including attending meetings and the publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5). The Committee observed that the penalty of imprisonment involves compulsory labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance.

The Committee noted the statement of the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) that it was possible that these regulations could be misused or misinterpreted to restrict civil rights and liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Government stated that these regulations are exclusively for the prevention of terrorism in the country and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour would be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that information has not been received from the Attorney General’s department. The Committee also notes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Sri Lanka in 2017 that the Government has initiated the drafting of new security laws, consisting of a national security act, a State intelligence services act and a prevention of organized crimes act, to replace the Preventions of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance (A/HRC/34/54/Add.2, paragraph 35). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on any progress made regarding the adoption of the abovementioned laws to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its regulations. Pending the adoption of such laws, it once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2 of 2011 in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of relevant court decisions.

2. Penal Code. The Committee previously noted that section 120 of the Penal Code provides that whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred towards or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years (involving compulsory labour). It requested information on the application of this provision of the Penal Code. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that this section was not used to penalize the expression of political opinions. If a fraudulent case is brought, the responsible officers or institutions can be penalized and ordered to compensate the affected party. Additionally, the affected party has the right to file a fundamental case with the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Constitution. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that no information has been received from the Attorney General’s department. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code in practice, including information on any convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application, in order to enable the Committee to assess the provision’s conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that, in practice, no form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline had taken place. It also indicated that the Merchant Shipping Authority was developing guidelines with regard to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ministry of Ports and Shipping and the Department of Merchant Shipping have understood the existing inconsistencies and agreed to make the necessary legal amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act. The Ministry of Labour, Trade Union Relations and Sabaragamuwa Development keeps the continuous communication with the abovementioned institutions and any development that has taken place will be communicated to the Committee. The Government also indicates that the Department of Merchant Shipping is in the process of amending the Merchant Shipping Act to comply with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee hopes that in the context of the current law review process, its previous comments concerning disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers will be duly taken in account. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act provide for procedural requirements for the participation in strikes in essential industries, and that section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2), 4(1) and 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, provide for certain restrictions on the right to strike. Violations of the abovementioned provisions are punishable by imprisonment, involving compulsory labour. The Government stated that the Essential Public Services Act of 1979 applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential to the life of the community. The Committee also noted the statement by the NTUF that several pieces of legislation, including the Public Security Ordinance, had become obsolete and were not enforced. However, the NTUF stated that the Government failed to repeal or amend the provisions of legislation which contravenes Articles of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in relation to the provisions concerned of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter will be discussed at the National Labour Advisory Council, and the decision will be communicated to the Committee. The Government also states that, with regard to the issues pertaining to the Essential Public Service Act of 1979 and the Public Security Ordinance of 1947, a dialogue will be initiated with relevant authorities in order to fulfil the requirement highlighted by the Committee. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to revise or repeal the abovementioned provisions, in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes, both in legislation and practice. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the communication from the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) dated 24 August 2013, as well as the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Prevention of terrorism regulations. The Committee previously noted the entering into force of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1–5 in 2011. In noted that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) Regulations No. 1 of 2011 provides a broad definition of offences, including taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting, and causing the dissemination of information, within or outside Sri Lanka, linked to the Sri Lanka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. This definition also covers any person connected or concerned in or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any of such activities. The offences are punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) of up to 20 years (section 4), and conspiring to commit, attempt, abet, or engage in any conduct in preparation of such an offence is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years (section 5). Additionally, it noted that the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise imposes penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) of up to 20 years for a range of activities linked to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization including attending meetings and the publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5).

The Committee notes the statement of the NTUF that it is possible that these regulations could be misused or misinterpreted to restrict civil rights and liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that no sanctions involving compulsory labour will be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Government indicates that these regulations are exclusively for the prevention of terrorism in the country, and that pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, any affected party can file a human rights case with the Supreme Court.

With reference to paragraphs 302–307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. While 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, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. 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. Considering the broad definition of terrorist activities in the Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the holding or expressing of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in this respect. Pending the adoption of such measures, it requests the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of relevant court decisions.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in practice, any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline does not take place. It also indicates that the Merchant Shipping Authority is developing guidelines with regard to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 127(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing the provisions permitting the imposition of sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that the Industrial Disputes Act penalizes the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries with sanctions of imprisonment from six up to 12 months (involving compulsory prison labour) (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act). It also noted that pursuant to section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947 and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work, or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, for a term of up to five years. Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong. It noted the Government’s statement that the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential public services essential to the life of the community. The Government also indicated that section 2 of the Act could only be invoked by the President during an emergency situation, which was no longer in existence.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour and Labour Relations will discuss the Committee’s comments with the social partners, and provide information on any progress in this regard. The Committee also notes the statement by the NTUF that several pieces of legislation, including the Public Security Ordinance, have become obsolete and are not enforced. However, the NTUF states that the Government has failed to repeal or amend the provisions of legislation which contravene articles of the Convention. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure, both in legislation and practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are revised in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to provide information on measures taken in this regard. Moreover, with reference to paragraph 314 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act and section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that section 120 of the Penal Code provides that whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred towards or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years. It also noted that, by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance, imprisonment involved the obligation to perform compulsory labour. It requested information on the application of this provision of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes with concern the Government’s statement that it has not yet received information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that it is implemented by government officers and government institutions and, in case a fraudulent case is brought, such officers or institutions can be penalized and ordered to compensate the affected party. Any case brought against a person under section 120 must be filed by making a charge sheet according to section 136(1)(a)(b) of the Penal Code. Additionally, the affected party has the right to file a case with the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Constitution. The Government indicates that it is therefore not possible to use section 120 of the Penal Code to penalize the expression of political opinions. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code in practice, including information on any arrests, prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application, in order to enable the Committee to assess the provision’s conformity with the Convention.

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

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

The Committee notes the communication from the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) dated 24 August 2013, as well as the Government’s report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Prevention of terrorism regulations. The Committee previously noted the entering into force of Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1–5 in 2011. In noted that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) Regulations No. 1 of 2011 provides a broad definition of offences, including taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting, and causing the dissemination of information, within or outside Sri Lanka, linked to the Sri Lanka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. This definition also covers any person connected or concerned in or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any of such activities. The offences are punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) of up to 20 years (section 4), and conspiring to commit, attempt, abet, or engage in any conduct in preparation of such an offence is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years (section 5). Additionally, it noted that the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise imposes penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) of up to 20 years for a range of activities linked to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization including attending meetings and the publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5).

The Committee notes the statement of the NTUF that it is possible that these regulations could be misused or misinterpreted to restrict civil rights and liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to organize. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that no sanctions involving compulsory labour will be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Government indicates that these regulations are exclusively for the prevention of terrorism in the country, and that pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, any affected party can file a human rights case with the Supreme Court.

With reference to paragraphs 302–307 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. While 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, the Committee must emphasize that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles. Even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are protected by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. 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. Considering the broad definition of terrorist activities in the Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the holding or expressing of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in this respect. Pending the adoption of such measures, it requests the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned provisions in practice, including information on any prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of relevant court decisions.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in practice, any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline does not take place. It also indicates that the Merchant Shipping Authority is developing guidelines with regard to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 127(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing the provisions permitting the imposition of sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that the Industrial Disputes Act penalizes the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries with sanctions of imprisonment from six up to 12 months (involving compulsory prison labour) (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act). It also noted that pursuant to section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947 and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work, or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, for a term of up to five years. Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong. It noted the Government’s statement that the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential public services essential to the life of the community. The Government also indicated that section 2 of the Act could only be invoked by the President during an emergency situation, which was no longer in existence.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour and Labour Relations will discuss the Committee’s comments with the social partners, and provide information on any progress in this regard. The Committee also notes the statement by the NTUF that several pieces of legislation, including the Public Security Ordinance, have become obsolete and are not enforced. However, the NTUF states that the Government has failed to repeal or amend the provisions of legislation which contravene articles of the Convention. Referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure, both in legislation and practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are revised in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to provide information on measures taken in this regard. Moreover, with reference to paragraph 314 of its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act and section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that section 120 of the Penal Code provides that whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred towards or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years. It also noted that, by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance, imprisonment involved the obligation to perform compulsory labour. It requested information on the application of this provision of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes with concern the Government’s statement that it has not yet received information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code. However, the Government indicates that it is implemented by government officers and government institutions and, in case a fraudulent case is brought, such officers or institutions can be penalized and ordered to compensate the affected party. Any case brought against a person under section 120 must be filed by making a charge sheet according to section 136(1)(a)(b) of the Penal Code. Additionally, the affected party has the right to file a case with the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Constitution. The Government indicates that it is therefore not possible to use section 120 of the Penal Code to penalize the expression of political opinions. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code in practice, including information on any arrests, prosecutions, convictions and penalties imposed, as well as copies of court decisions illustrating the scope of its application, in order to enable the Committee to assess the provision’s conformity with the Convention.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance). The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the issues raised under this point are awaiting information from the Ministry of Shipping and Aviation. The Committee also notes the Government’s repeated indication that the Government is currently reviewing the possibility to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending section 127(2) of the Act, either by repealing the provisions permitting the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that, under section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour, for a term of up to five years. Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that with the expiration of the emergency regulations, the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, is no longer in force. As regards the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, the Government states that this Act applies to certain government departments, public corporations, local authorities, cooperative societies and essential public services declared as essential public services essential to the life of the community. Section 2 of the Act can only be invoked by the President during an emergency situation, which is no longer in existence. The Government furthermore states that no persons have been held in custody or imprisoned for the violation of essential services under the Act.

In its earlier comments, the Committee also noted that the Industrial Disputes Act which makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment of up to six months (involving compulsory prison labour) the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act). The Committee observed that the Government in its 2010 report indicated that the penalties in the Industrial Disputes Act are being revised by a Labour Law Reform Committee and that suitable measures would be taken to address the issues relating to sections 32(2), 40(1)(n) and 43(1) of the Act.

The Committee notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, that the Industrial Disputes Act has been amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, No. 39 of 2011. Yet, the Committee notes that, instead of bringing national legislation in compliance with the Convention, the amended Industrial Disputes Act has increased sanctions from six up to 12 months of imprisonment.

With respect to the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, in practice, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that no employee has been imprisoned (and subjected to compulsory prison labour) pursuant to the contravention of section 40(1) only. The Government further indicates that section 32 of the Act provides that industry employer or employees can resort to lockout or strike action provided that a three-week notice period is served. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that no person has been imprisoned (and subjected to compulsory prison labour) pursuant to the contravention of section 32.

While noting that no persons have been imprisoned and subjected to compulsory prison labour for participation in strike action, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure, both in legislation and practice, that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or for peacefully participating in strikes. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are revised in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the comments made by the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union (LJEWU) on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Emergency regulations. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, adopted in 1989 and revised in 1994, 2000 and 2005, which contained various prohibitions concerning meetings, processions and publications, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance). The Committee notes that upon request by the President, these emergency regulations expired on 30 August 2011.

2. Penal Code. The Committee notes that section 120 of the Penal Code provides that whoever by words, signs or visible representations excites or attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the President or the Government, or hatred to or contempt of the administration of justice, or excites or attempts to excite people, or attempts to raise discontent or to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 120 of the Penal Code in practice in order to ascertain the scope of these provisions and to ensure that they are not used to penalize the expression of political opinions by sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour.

3. Prevention of terrorism regulations. The Committee notes that on 29 August 2011, Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1–5 were decreed which entered into force following the expiration of the emergency regulations. The Committee notes that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) Regulations No. 1 of 2011 provides a broad definition of punishable activities, including taking part in meetings, promoting, encouraging, supporting, advising, assisting, and causing the dissemination of information, within or outside Sri Lanka, linked to the Sri Lanka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or any other organization presenting or acting on behalf of the said organization. This definition also covers any person connected or concerned in or reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any of such activities. Any person found guilty of an offence as defined in section 3 shall be sentenced to imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour of up to 20 years (section 4) and any person who conspires to commit, attempt, abet, or engage in any conduct in preparation to commit an offence as defined in section 3 shall be sentenced to imprisonment up to ten years involving compulsory prison labour (section 5). The Committee further notes that the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization) Regulations No. 2 of 2011 likewise imposes penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour of up to 20 years for a range of activities linked to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization including attending meetings and publication of material (sections 3, 4 and 5).

The Committee also notes that the Prevention of Terrorism (Detainees and Remandees) Regulations No. 4 of 2011 provides for measures to continue to detain suspects who had been previously detained under the Emergency Regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (section 2(2)). According to section 3, no person detained shall be released until the expiry of 30 days from 30 August 2011 provided that no detention order is issued pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act or any other Act in force.

The Committee further notes that the Prevention of Terrorism (Surrendees Care and Rehabilitation) Regulations No. 5 of 2011 requires that any person who surrendered for any offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or has surrendered in terms of the emergency regulation previously in force, shall be assigned to a “Protective Accommodation and Rehabilitation Centre” and provided with appropriate vocational, technical or other training. The surrendee may be kept for a period not exceeding ten months, which may be extended for a further 12 months.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee points out 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. The Committee also recalls that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are covered by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to or call for violent means to these ends. 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. In this regard, the Committee refers also to the explanations in paragraphs 302–307 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work.

Considering the broad definition of terrorist activities in the Prevention of Terrorism Regulations Nos 1 and 2, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on those holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all persons condemned with prison sentences under the emergency regulations for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system are not subject to compulsory prison labour. It further requests the Government to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed on surrendees in Protective Accommodation and Rehabilitation Centres for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in this respect.

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

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, as well as the Government’s response to the comments dated 2 August 2010, received from the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union (LJEWU), as well as to the comments made by the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF), communicated by the Government with its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Emergency regulations. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, adopted in 1989 and revised in 1994, 2000 and 2005. Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, the Committee noted that these Regulations contain various prohibitions concerning meetings, processions and publications, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance). The Committee pointed out that recourse to such exceptional powers should take place only in strict cases of emergency, and the nature and duration of the measures taken should be limited to what is strictly necessary to meet circumstances that would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes that, in response to the comments made by the LJEWU and NTUF referred to above, the Government stated that, after the end of the war, the lifting of the Emergency Regulations is desirable in the long term and will inevitably take place. The Government further stated that it will take action to lift the Emergency Regulations, when the situation is improved.

The Committee trusts that the Emergency Regulations referred to above will be lifted in the near future and that the Government will soon be in a position to provide information on the measures taken to give full effect to the provisions of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that, under section 127(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act (No. 52 of 1971), the minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. As the Committee has noted above, sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour, by virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance. The Committee recalled that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As explained in paragraphs 179–181 of the Committee’s General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Government is currently reviewing the Merchant Shipping Act with a view to ratifying the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and that the Cabinet of Ministers has given a directive to get the legislation reviewed by the Attorney‑General before any action is taken to ratify the Convention.

While noting this indication, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will soon be taken with a view to amending section 127(2) of the Act, either by repealing the provisions permitting the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee previously noted that, under section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to five years (which involves compulsory prison labour). Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong.

The Committee also noted, referring to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, that the Industrial Disputes Act makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment of up to six months (involving compulsory prison labour) the participation in strike in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act).

The Committee notes that, in response to the comments made by the LJEWU and NTUF referred to above, in which the unions considered both the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and the Essential Public Services Act, 1979, to be obsolete, the Government states that it is necessary to examine the provisions of these enactments in the context of the situations covered by the Convention and that they will be reviewed in accordance with the Committee’s comments. The Government also indicates that the penalties in the Industrial Disputes Act are being revised by a Labour Law Reform Committee and that suitable measures would be taken to address the issues relating to sections 32(2), 40(1)(n) and 43(1) of the Act.

The Committee hopes that the above provisions concerning labour discipline and imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour will be revised in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or participation in peaceful strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

I. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not yet responded to the observations made in May 2007 by the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union concerning the application of the Convention, which were forwarded to the Government in August 2007. The Committee also notes a new communication received from the National Trade Union Federation (NTUF) (dated 22 July 2009), which was sent to the Government in September 2009 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 both 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 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:

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Emergency regulations. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, in which it referred to the state of emergency declared on 20 June 1989 under the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and the powers of the President under the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, adopted in 1989 and revised in 1994, 2000 and 2005. While taking due note of the Government’s repeated statement in its reports on Convention No. 29 that, in view of the ongoing civil war in the country, it was imperative that the provisions of the Emergency Regulations were in force in order to prevent any breakdown in the national security and to ensure the maintenance of essential services in the country, the Committee pointed out that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that it should also be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is limited in extent and duration to what is strictly required to cope with the said circumstances.

As regards the application of the present Convention, the Committee has adopted a similar approach with regard to emergency measures, such as the suppression or limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms, which may have a bearing on the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention, if such measures are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour. Noting that the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations referred to above contain various prohibitions concerning meetings, processions and publications, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance), the Committee refers to the explanations in paragraph 55 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it pointed out that recourse to such exceptional powers should take place only in strict cases of emergency, and the nature and duration of the measures taken should be limited to what is strictly necessary to meet circumstances that would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee therefore hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, the Government will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the provisions of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee notes that, under section 127(1)(ii) of Merchant Shipping Act, No. 52 of 1971, the Minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. As the Committee has noted above, sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour, in virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken with a view to amending the above provisions, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered. Please also provide a copy of the Regulations referred to in section 127(1)(ii) and (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, as well as the information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1, subparagraphs c and d. Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee notes that, under section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance 1947, and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to five years (which involves compulsory prison labour). Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong.

The Committee further notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, that the Industrial Disputes Act makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment of up to six months (involving compulsory prison labour) the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act).

The Committee notes that the Public Security Ordinance 1947 (section 17(1)), empowers the President to declare essential any service which, in his opinion, is essential to the life of the community. The Essential Public Services Act 1979, gives to the President similar powers with regard to any government department or public corporation or local authority or cooperative society engaged in the provision of any services specified in the schedule to the Act, which refer to such services (e.g. supply and distribution of fuel, transport generally, postal and broadcasting services, services provided by all cooperative societies and unions) the interruption of which does not necessarily endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 175–178 and 182–189 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it recalled that punishment of disciplinary offences or offences related to violation of restrictions on the right to strike, with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour, is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or in circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger, or in situations of force majeure. However, the provisions of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and the Essential Public Services Act 1979, referred to above provide for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) in a wider range of circumstances, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions concerning labour discipline and imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger, or to cases of force majeure, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or participation in peaceful strikes in other services. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first and second reports on the application of the Convention, as well as the comments made in May 2007 by the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union. It requests the Government to respond to the workers’ comments in its next report and to provide additional information on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Emergency regulations. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, in which it referred to the state of emergency declared on 20 June 1989 under the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and the powers of the President under the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, adopted in 1989 and revised in 1994, 2000 and 2005. While taking due note of the Government’s repeated statement in its reports on Convention No. 29 that, in view of the ongoing civil war in the country, it was imperative that the provisions of the Emergency Regulations were in force in order to prevent any breakdown in the national security and to ensure the maintenance of essential services in the country, the Committee pointed out that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency powers should be limited to circumstances which would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, and that it should also be clear from the legislation itself that the power to exact labour is limited in extent and duration to what is strictly required to cope with the said circumstances.

As regards the application of the present Convention, the Committee has adopted a similar approach with regard to emergency measures, such as the suppression or limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms, which may have a bearing on the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention, if such measures are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour. Noting that the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations referred to above contain various prohibitions concerning meetings, processions and publications, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour in virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance), the Committee refers to the explanations in paragraph 55 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it pointed out that recourse to such exceptional powers should take place only in strict cases of emergency, and the nature and duration of the measures taken should be limited to what is strictly necessary to meet circumstances that would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee therefore hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, the Government will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the provisions of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee notes that, under section 127(1)(ii) of Merchant Shipping Act, No. 52 of 1971, the Minister may make regulations concerning the conditions of service of those serving on board ships, including regulations providing for disciplinary offences, discipline of officers and seafarers, imposition of penalties on persons committing offences and connected procedures. Under section 127(2) of the Act, such regulations may provide for the imposition of penalties of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. As the Committee has noted above, sanctions of imprisonment involve compulsory prison labour, in virtue of section 65 of the Prison Ordinance.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken with a view to amending the above provisions, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered. Please also provide a copy of the Regulations referred to in section 127(1)(ii) and (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, as well as the information on their application in practice, indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c) and (d). Sanctions for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in essential services. The Committee notes that, under section 17(2) of the Public Security Ordinance 1947, and sections 2(2) and 4(1) of the Essential Public Services Act 1979, persons employed in essential services who fail or refuse to attend their place of work or perform such work or those who impede, obstruct, delay or restrict the carrying on of such services, are punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to five years (which involves compulsory prison labour). Section 6 of the Essential Public Services Act 1979, also restricts the right to strike, specifying that it shall not be a defence for such persons to prove that any act or omission constituting the offence was performed in furtherance of a strike commenced by a trade union to which they belong.

The Committee further notes, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Sri Lanka, that the Industrial Disputes Act makes punishable with sanctions of imprisonment of up to six months (involving compulsory prison labour) the participation in strikes in essential industries in violation of procedural requirements to be observed in declaring strikes in such industries (sections 32(2) and 40(1)(n), read in conjunction with section 43(1) of the Act).

The Committee notes that the Public Security Ordinance 1947 (section 17(1)), empowers the President to declare essential any service which, in his opinion, is essential to the life of the community. The Essential Public Services Act 1979, gives to the President similar powers with regard to any government department or public corporation or local authority or cooperative society engaged in the provision of any services specified in the schedule to the Act, which refer to such services (e.g. supply and distribution of fuel, transport generally, postal and broadcasting services, services provided by all cooperative societies and unions) the interruption of which does not necessarily endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 175–178 and 182–189 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it recalled that punishment of disciplinary offences or offences related to violation of restrictions on the right to strike, with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour, is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or in circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger, or in situations of force majeure. However, the provisions of the Public Security Ordinance, 1947, and the Essential Public Services Act 1979, referred to above provide for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) in a wider range of circumstances, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions concerning labour discipline and imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger, or to cases of force majeure, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for disciplinary offences or participation in peaceful strikes in other services. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 2003)

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

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