Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 1 (hours of work), 14 (weekly rest) and 89 and its Protocol (night work of women) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) on Conventions Nos 1 and 89, objecting to amendments to the Factories Act, 1948 as applied to the state of Karnataka (the Factories (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2023). In particular, the Committee notes that the AITUC expresses concerns regarding the increase in: (i) the maximum number of daily working hours (up to 12 hours, within the weekly limit of 48 hours); and (ii) the maximum number of additional hours of work (up to 144 hours per quarter), which can have negative impacts on safety and health. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the consultations that took place prior to the adoption of those amendments.

Legislative developments and application in practice of the Conventions. The Committee notes the adoption of the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (hereinafter, the 2020 Code), consolidating provisions of 13 laws, including the Factories Act, 1948 and the Mining Act, 1952. It observes, however, that the 2020 Code is not yet in force. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made concerning the entry into force of the 2020 Code.

Hours of work

Article 1 of Convention No. 1. Scope of application. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 2(w) of the 2020 Code, factories using the aid of power with less than 20 workers; or factories without the aid of power with less than 40 workers, are not covered by the 2020 Code. This results in a narrower scope of application than the Factories Act, 1948, which excludes factories with less than 10 employees. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it will ensure that the provisions of the Convention are also observed in relation to workers who are excluded from the 2020 Code.

Article 2. Weekly limit. The Committee notes that section 25(1) of the 2020 Code provides for a daily limit to hours of work of eight hours per day but does not contain provisions on weekly limits to hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the weekly limits to working hours for all workers under the scope of application of the Convention.

Article 6. Permanent and temporary exceptions. Prior consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that consultations with stakeholders took place prior to the adoption of the 2020 Code, including nine rounds of tripartite consultations. The Committee also notes that, while section 27 of the 2020 Code allows overtime subject to the consent of the worker, it does not fix a maximum number of additional hours, nor does it foresee the circumstances under which overtime is authorized. The Committee recalls the importance of national legislation and practice restricting recourse to exemptions to cases of clear, well-defined and limited circumstances (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, para. 119). The Committee further recalls that, pursuant to Article 6(2), regulations on additional hours shall fix the maximum number of additional hours in each instance. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on any Rules adopted under section 27, and to specify: (i) the circumstances under which overtime is allowed; (ii) the maximum number of additional hours allowed; and (iii) the consultations that were held with social partners in the adoption of such Rules.

Weekly rest

Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 14. Scope of application. Following its previous comments regarding the exclusion from the Factories Act, 1948 of workers employed in factories with less than ten employees, the Committee notes that, pursuant to section 2(w) of the 2020 Code, factories using the aid of power with less than 20 workers; or factories without the aid of power with less than 40 workers, are not covered by the 2020 Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that weekly rest is granted to all factory employees, irrespective of the number of employees in the factory.

Articles 4 and 5. Total or partial exceptions. Compensatory rest. The Committee notes that the principle of a weekly rest day is provided under section 26(1) of the Code. However, pursuant to section 26(2) of the Code, workers can be exempted from the application of section 26(1), in accordance with conditions prescribed by the appropriate state government. Furthermore, section 26(3) of the Code provides that workers deprived of their weekly rest shall be allowed a compensatory rest within the month in which the holidays were due or within the two months immediately following that month they were deprived of their weekly rest. In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of granting compensatory rest within an appropriate lapse of time in order to protect workers’ health and safety and their participation in family life (2018 General Survey concerning working-time instruments, para. 918). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any exemptions introduced pursuant to section 26(2) of the Code, and to indicate how, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Convention, such exceptions: (i) give special regard to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations; and (ii) are adopted after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers.

Night work

Article 3 of Convention No. 89 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 89. Prohibition on night work for women. Maternity protection. Following its previous comments on the Protocol, the Committee notes that section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, and section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952, prohibit the night work of women, subject to limited variations in the hours covered by the prohibition that can be defined by the appropriate state government. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 43 of the 2020 Code, which is not yet in force, women may be employed at night with their consent, subject to such conditions relating to safety, holidays and working hours or any other condition as may be prescribed by the appropriate state government. The Committee nevertheless observes that there are no provisions in the 2020 Code concerning the protection of women night workers, in relation to maternity. Recalling that protective measures applicable to women’s employment at night which go beyond maternity protection and are based on stereotyped perceptions regarding women’s professional abilities and role in society violate the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women, and recalling that Convention No. 89 will be open for denunciation between 27 February 2031 and 27 February 2032, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171), which is not devised as a gender-specific instrument but focuses on the protection of all those working at night (2018 General Survey concerning working time instruments, paras 408 and 545). The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on measures taken or envisaged to protect women night workers with regard to maternity, under the 2020 Code.

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

Articles 1(1)(1)(a), and 2(1) of the Protocol. Exemptions from prohibition and variations in the night period – Maternity protection. The Committee recalls its previous comments in which it noted that, despite having ratified the 1990 Protocol to Convention No. 89 in 2003, the Government has still not adopted the necessary legislative changes to implement its provisions, in particular the requirement for an express agreement of – and not mere consultation with – employers’ and workers’ organizations at the branch or enterprise level before any variation in the duration of the night period or exemption from the prohibition of night work can be introduced, and the prohibition to apply any negotiated exemptions from the prohibition of night work or variations in the duration of the night period to women workers during a period of at least 16 weeks before and after childbirth. In its latest report, the Government refers to a revised draft text of the proposed amendment to section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, which is in line with the above requirements as it incorporates the need to obtain the consent of women workers and the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations before allowing the employment of women during the night and also excludes any such permission to be granted to women during a period of 16 weeks before and after childbirth of which at least eight weeks shall be before the expected childbirth. Recalling that the Government has been reporting since 2008 that the necessary amendment is pending consideration in Parliament, the Committee hopes that the proposed amendment to section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, will be adopted in the very near future in order to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the requirements of the Protocol. In addition, the Committee once again invites the Government to take appropriate steps to proceed to the denunciation of the obsolete Night Work (Women) Convention, 1919 (No. 4).

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

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

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

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

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Permanent and temporary exceptions – Prior consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. Further to its previous comments regarding sections 64 and 65 of the Factories Act, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that while no provision is made for consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations for the determination of cases in which permanent or temporary exceptions to the rules respecting normal hours of work may be allowed, various tripartite committees are constituted and consulted in practice prior to amendments to the Act. However, the Committee wishes to recall that under Article 6(2) of the Convention, regulations by the public authority determining permanent or temporary exceptions to the normal hours of work must be made only after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Factories Act expressly provides for consultations with the social partners prior to introducing any permanent or temporary exceptions to normal hours of work, as required under this Article of the Convention.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government concerning the number of units and jobs covered by section 85 of the Factories Act, 1951, under the terms of which state governments may declare that all or some of the provisions of the Act are applicable to factories which are normally excluded from its scope. The Committee would also be grateful to be provided with the text of the regulations adopted by certain state governments under this section and it requests the Government to provide copies to the Office. The Committee also reiterates its request to the Government concerning the limits on normal daily and weekly hours of work which are applicable to premises that are not covered by the Factories Act.

Article 5. Averaging of hours of work. Exceptional cases. The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning the reasons for which the averaging of hours of work has been adopted. However, it recalls that its previous comment related to the criteria used for the averaging of hours of work for railway employees who are not in the running staff, operating staff, shift workers and others, whose work is connected with that of any of the above categories. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the information available on the criteria used for this purpose.

Article 6. Permanent and temporary exceptions. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the context of the application of the Mines Act, 1952. It notes the Government’s indications that such consultations are also held in the framework of the implementation of the Factories Act, 1948. The Committee, however, observes that section 115 of the Factories Act, to which the Government refers, concerns the publication of regulations under the Act and not to the consultation procedure. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate which provisions envisage the consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations for the determination of cases in which permanent or temporary exceptions may be allowed to the rules respecting normal hours of work in premises to which the Factories Act applies.

Part IV of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the Government’s report, the court hearing in the procedure involving the enterprise M/S Model Construction (P) Ltd in the state of Goa was due to be held in June 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decision in this case when it has been handed down. The Government is also requested to provide copies of any other court decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention.

Part V. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the number of factories and workers employed therein, and the number of factories inspected. It also notes the information concerning the number of workers who are covered by the Mines Act and the Government’s indication that no contraventions of section 30(1) of the Mines Act relating to the limitation of working hours have been reported. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including copies of the reports of the inspection services and information on the number and nature of the contraventions reported to the relevant provisions of the national legislation, and the action taken as a result.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. Limitations on daily and weekly working hours. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments concerning the observations made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) union, concerning the application of the Convention. It notes the Government’s indications that the information technology sector is not governed by the Factories Act, but by the provisions of the Shop and Establishment Acts of the respective state governments. The Committee wishes to specify that the comments of the above trade union organizations referred to two different points: firstly, the BMS alleged the existence of violations of the legislation on working time in certain sectors, and particularly information technology, without referring to the Factories Act; second, the CITU alleged, without mentioning any specific sector, that the provisions of the Factories Act limiting weekly working hours to 48 were among those most frequently violated. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to reply to the observations made by the above trade union organizations on the two points indicated above. It also requests the Government to provide information on any complaints that may have been filed under the Factories Act and results of those complaints.

With regard to violations of the legislation on working time in Special Economic Zones, which were also alleged by the BMS, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that it has sought information from the various state governments. The Committee requests the Government to provide the Office with any information that is received concerning any violations of the legislation on working time in the Special Economic Zones.

Furthermore, with regard to the possible revision of the legislation to raise the limits on working hours to 12 in the day and 60 in the week, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that there is no information on such an initiative. The Committee, however, observes that the Economic Survey for 2008–09, published by the Ministry of Finance, makes explicit reference to the need to amend the Factories Act as indicated above. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional clarification in this regard.

Finally, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the conclusions of the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Working Time Arrangements, held in October 2011, according to which the provisions of existing ILO standards relating to daily and weekly hours of work, weekly rest, paid annual leave, part time and night work, remain relevant in the twenty-first century, and should be promoted in order to facilitate decent work. The Experts also emphasized the importance of working time, its regulation, and organization and management, to: (a) workers and their health and well-being, including opportunities for balancing working and non-work time; (b) the productivity and competitiveness of enterprises; and (c) effective responses to economic and labour market crises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 2(m), the Factories Act, 1948, only applies to premises with at least ten workers operating with the aid of power, or 20 workers without the aid of power. It further notes that section 85 of the Act empowers State Governments to declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to factories that are excluded from its scope under the above provision. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that certain State Governments have extended the scope of application of the Act to all factories and products, regardless of the number of workers. It would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any relevant regulations adopted under section 85 of the Factories Act. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the rules relating to hours of work which are applicable to premises that are not currently covered by the Act and to provide an estimate of the number of workers who are excluded from its coverage.

Article 5. Averaging of hours of work. Exceptional cases. The Committee notes that Rule 10(2) of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, allows the averaging of hours of work for running staff, operating staff, shift workers and others whose work is connected with that of any of the above categories. With regard to this latter category of workers, the Committee notes that, according to the indications in the Government’s report, the concerned administration determines whether or not the averaging of hours of work should be permitted in light of the principles of Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide the information available to it on the criteria used by the concerned administrations for this purpose.

Article 6. Permanent and temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that sections 51 and 54 of the Factories Act establish the 48-hour working week and daily hours of work as nine in any day. It further notes that section 59 of the Act establishes the additional wages applicable when these limits are exceeded. Furthermore, the Committee notes the indications in the Government’s report that exceptions from normal hours of work have been included in sections 64 and 65 of the Factories Act and in Model Rule No. 109. Noting that none of these provisions require the holding of prior consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, as required by this Article of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which such consultations are ensured when changes are made to the enumeration of the precise cases in which permanent or temporary exceptions are allowed to the normal limits on hours of work.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. Referring to the observations made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) union concerning the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice including, where possible, statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, as well as the reports of the inspection services, including information on the number and nature of the contraventions reported and the measures adopted to resolve them.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report, and the observations made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) concerning the application of the Convention, which were received on 25 August 2008, and those of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) union, which were attached to the Government’s report. It notes the allegations by the BMS of violations of the legislation on hours of work in certain sectors, such as information technology, and in special economic zones. The Committee further notes the CITU’s indication that the provisions of the Factories Act establishing the 48-hour working week are amongst those most frequently violated. It also notes that, according to the CITU, the Government is reported to have the intention of raising hours of work to 12 hours a day and 60 hours a week. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in reply to the observations made by these two trade union organizations.

Article 6 of the Convention. Permanent exceptions – essentially intermittent work – railways. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the adoption of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, the provisions of which reflect the recommendations of the Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969, a copy of which was attached to the Government’s report. It notes that Rule 7(3) establishes the criteria under which work may be classified as “essentially intermittent”. It also notes that Rule 3(1) provides that the power to declare employment essentially intermittent is vested in the Head of the Railway Administration and that, in accordance with Rule 3(4), any railway servant aggrieved by such a decision may appeal to the Regional Labour Commissioner, and then to the Ministry of Labour. The Committee further notes that, under the terms of Rule 8, the standard hours of duty for these employees are 48 hours a week with the possibility of 12 or 24 additional hours, according to the type of work, as well as three hours of preparatory or complementary work, making an absolute maximum of 75 hours a week, as established in section 132 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Temporary exceptions – railways. The Committee notes that Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, empowers the head of a railway administration to make temporary exceptions from the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, in respect of hours of work for an employee or class of employees in the railways in the cases envisaged in sections 132(4) and 133(3) of the Railways Act, 1989. It notes that these sections authorize such exceptions where they are considered necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the railway or in cases of accident, actual or threatened, or when urgent work is required to be done, or in any emergency which could not have been foreseen or prevented, or in other cases of exceptional pressure of work.

The Committee observes that the Government has not replied to its previous comment concerning any consultations held with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning the introduction of the permanent and temporary exceptions described above. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide fuller information on any consultations held with the organizations of employers and workers concerned prior to the adoption of the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, as required by Article 6 of the Convention when permanent or temporary exceptions are made to the normal rules respecting hours of work.

Article 10. Special provisions applicable to India. As the clause set out in this Article was adopted prior to India’s independence, and with reference to the Government’s express desire to accept the principle of the 48-hour working week, the Committee once again expresses the hope that the Government will consider favourably the possibility of making a declaration accepting the application of all of the provisions of the Convention. Such an initiative would be particularly desirable since the normal working week in factories and mines has already been set at 48 hours. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate its intentions in this regard.

Part IV of the report form. Court decisions. The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the Government’s report, the prosecutions against M/S Shital Traders are not related to failure to comply with the legal provisions relating to hours of work. With regard to the case against M/S Model Construction (P) Ltd, Goa, it notes the Government’s indications that the case is in its final stages. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the court’s ruling when it is handed down. The Government is also requested to provide, where appropriate, copies of other court decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee notes that a number of seminars have been organized jointly by high courts and the International Labour Office on the theme of promoting social justice through international labour standards. It hopes that the development of this type of activity will facilitate the application of ILO standards, including Convention No. 1, by the national courts.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

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

Article 1, paragraph 1(a), of the Protocol to the Convention. Exemptions from prohibition and variations in the night period. The Committee has been drawing attention to this provision of the Protocol which requires the express agreement of – and not mere consultation with – employers’ and workers’ organizations at the branch or enterprise level before any variation in the duration of the night period or exemption from the prohibition of night work can be introduced. In its last report, the Government indicates that the proposed amendment of section 66 of the Factories Act 1948 will duly reflect the Committee’s comments and will be in conformity with the requirements of the Protocol. Noting that the amendment is currently pending consideration by the Parliament, the Committee asks the Government to transmit a copy of the revised text of the Factories Act 1948 once it has been adopted. In this connection, the Committee notes the new comments communicated by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) on 25 August 2008 according to which the Government has not yet reacted to the concrete suggestions and concerns expressed earlier on the application of the Convention and the proposed amendment of section 66 of the Factories Act. Noting that the Government has not yet replied to the previous observations of the CITU, dated 24 August 2005, the Committee invites the Government to express its views in response to both communications of the CITU.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol. Maternity protection. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 10 (additional leave for illness arising out of pregnancy) and 12 (protection against unfair dismissal) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 which are nonetheless not relevant with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol which prohibits to apply any negotiated exemptions from the prohibition of night work or variations in the duration of the night period to women workers during a period of at least 16 weeks before and after childbirth. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take appropriate action in order to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Protocol in this regard.

Article 5 of the Convention. Suspension of the prohibition of night work in case of serious emergency. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that state governments may grant exemptions from the prohibition of night work on account of “public emergency”, as defined in section 5 of the Factories Act, and that the Union Territory of Pondicherry resorts to the use of section 5 on a regular basis in order to grant exemptions under section 66 of the Factories Act 1948. The Committee is obliged to observe, in this connection, that Article 5 of the Convention requires prior consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, and most importantly refers to a compelling national interest in case of serious emergency, such as in time of war. Noting that under the Factories Act, the term “public emergency” is meant to cover situations where the security of India is threatened whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, the Committee asks the Government to provide additional explanations on the use made of this exceptional provision, especially on the circumstances which would possibly justify the regular recourse to the “public emergency” clause by the southern Union Territory of Pondicherry.

Article 3 of the Protocol and Parts IV and V of the report form. Practical application. With further reference to recent court decisions which upheld that the prohibition against the employment of women during the night was unconstitutional, the Committee would appreciate receiving up to date information on any further developments, including new judgements, relevant reports of tripartite consultative bodies, studies published by women’s organizations or other interest groups, etc.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments made by the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS). According to the workers’ organization, the situation of women night workers should be looked with caution in the light of national circumstances where women have a greater role to play in family, workers have to travel long distances to their workplace, and workplace protection against sexual harassment is weak. The BMS considers that the Convention must be strictly enforced and refers to recent judgements of various courts that have amplified controversy over the issue of night work. The Committee requests the Government to transmit together with its next report any comments it may wish to make with regard to the observations of the BMS.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government remains bound by the provisions of the Night Work (Women) Convention, 1919 (No. 4), and therefore action also needs to be taken in this regard. In its General Survey of 2001 on the night work of women in industry, the Committee concluded that Convention No. 4 was a rigid instrument, ill-suited to present-day realities and manifestly of historical importance only (paragraph 193). Similarly, the ILO Governing Body, based on the recommendations of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, decided to retain Convention No. 4 as a candidate for possible abrogation considering that it no longer corresponded to current needs and had become obsolete (see GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 31–32 and 38). The Committee takes this opportunity to recall that contrary to most other Conventions which may be denounced after an initial period of five or ten years but only during an interval of one year, the denunciation of Convention No. 4 is possible at any time provided that the representative organizations of employers and workers are fully consulted in advance. The Committee therefore strongly encourages the Government to take appropriate action in respect of obsolete Convention No. 4.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the explanations provided in reply to its previous observation. It wishes to raise the following points in this regard.

Article 6 of the Convention. Permanent exceptions. Referring to its previous comments following the observation made by Central Railway Mazadoor Sangh, the Committee notes that, by virtue of section 132(1) of the Railways Act of 1989, a railway servant whose employment is essentially intermittent may not be employed for more than 75 hours in any week. Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the indications supplied by the Government in its latest report, the Hours of Employment Regulations were adopted following the recommendations made by the Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969. The Government also specifies that this Tribunal was established following an agreement concluded between the trade union organizations and the management of the railways. The Government therefore considers that the Tribunal’s recommendations ensue from an agreement between the trade union organizations and the Government.

The Committee recalls, however, that the regulations establishing permanent exceptions to the normal duration of work must be made after consultations carried out directly with employers’ and workers’ organizations and must specifically address the issues dealt with as a part of those consultations. Consequently, it requests the Government to indicate whether these organizations have been effectively consulted on the setting of a 75-hour limit to the duration of the working week for railway servants whose work is essentially intermittent. The Committee considers that the agreement concluded between the trade union organizations and the management of the railway regarding the establishment of the Railway Labour Tribunal does not seem to suffice in this regard. The Government is also invited to forward a copy of the regulation on the hours of work and the recommendations adopted by the abovementioned tribunal, which have, as yet, not been made available to the Office.

Temporary exceptions. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section 132(4) of the Railways Act of 1989, the competent authority may make temporary exceptions to the duration of the normal working week if it is of the opinion that such exceptions are necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the railway; or in cases of accident, actual or threatened; or when urgent work is required to be done, in any emergency which could not have been foreseen or prevented; or in other cases of exceptional pressure of work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the introduction of such temporary exceptions requires, as in the case of the permanent exceptions examined above, consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. It therefore requests the Government to indicate whether and in which manner consultations have been carried out.

Article 10. Special provisions applicable to India. The Committee notes the Government’s new declaration stating that the use of the term "British India" in Article 10 of the Convention is highly objectionable. The Committee appreciates the concerns and understands that the Office is currently studying the possibility of a suitable arrangement which is both pragmatic and in line with the constitutional procedures of the Organization. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to accept, through a declaration, the application of all the provisions of the Convention in this regard, as has been suggested in the past.

Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes that, in its report of 1996, the Government indicated that, following an observation made by the Bijli Mazdour Panchayat organization, legal proceedings were launched in the Province of Gujarat against the enterprise M/S Shital Traders, accused of having employed certain workers for 12 hours a day without paying them overtime. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of these proceedings. The Committee also notes that, according to the information forwarded by the Government in 2002 and 2003 concerning the legal proceedings launched against the enterprise M/S Model Construction (P) Ltd. in the Province of Goa, the courts have still not handed down a definite ruling. It therefore requests the Government to continue to keep the Office informed of any progress regarding these proceedings. The Government is invited to indicate in general whether courts have handed down rulings on questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention, and if so, to forward the text of these decisions.

Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to provide general indications on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, providing, for example, labour inspectorate reports and, if possible, statistical data on the number of workers protected by the relevant legislation and the nature of the violations recorded.

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in response to its previous observation. It also notes the comments of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), dated 24 August 2005, on the application of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 1(a), of the Protocol. The Committee notes that according to the terms of the proposed amendment to section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, the employment of women workers between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. is to be allowed provided that adequate safeguards are made by the occupier of the factory as regards occupational health and safety, equal opportunity for women workers, adequate protection of their dignity, honour and safety and their transportation from the factory premises to the nearest point of their residence. The revised text also provides for prior consultations with the concerned employer, or employers’ organization, and workers, or workers’ representative organizations. The Committee recalls, in this respect, that under Article 1(1)(a) of the Protocol, exemptions from the prohibition of night work or variations in the duration of the night period in a specific branch of activity or occupation may be permitted only if the representative organizations of the employers and workers concerned have concluded an agreement to this effect or have given their agreement. The Committee draws therefore the Government’s attention to the need to modify the draft amendment, which requires mere consultation with the concerned employers and workers, in order to ensure full conformity with the provisions of the Protocol.

In this connection, the Committee notes the comments made by the CITU according to which the proposed amendment does not require any specific agreement between the employers and employees, its provisions on transportation are vague while the responsibility does not lie with the employer but with the occupier of the factory. The CITU argues that the amendment is not based on any proper study of the current situation, concerns or needs of women workers. It also denounces existing practices whereby even pregnant and breastfeeding women are threatened and forced to work at night despite the ban on women’s night work in force. The Committee requests the Government to transmit together with its next report any comments it may wish to make with regard to the observations of the CITU.

Article 2, paragraph 1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that under section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a woman is entitled to the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for a maximum period of 12 weeks of which not more than six weeks must precede the date of her expected delivery. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that there is no explicit provision under the proposed amendment to the Factories Act prohibiting the employment of women factory workers during the night period before and after childbirth for at least 16 weeks, as required under this Article of the Protocol. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to give full effect to the requirements of the Protocol in this regard.

Article 3 and Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the decision of the Madras High Court of December 2000 by which the prohibition of night work for women was declared unconstitutional and discriminatory and which eventually led the Government to introduce in July 2003 a Bill to amend section 66 of the Factories Act. It also notes the brief account on the views expressed by trade unions, women’s organizations and other interested groups during the examination of this Bill by the Standing Committee on Labour and Welfare of the National Parliament in October 2003. Moreover, the Committee notes the statistical information supplied by the Government concerning the number of women workers employed in the various states and the exemptions which have been granted to certain textile/spinning industries and food industries permitting the employment of women up to 10 p.m. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide up-to-date information concerning the application of the Convention and its Protocol in practice, especially once the amendment to the Factories Act is formally enacted and takes effect.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that the ratification of the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171), might be considered once the relevant laws and regulations are brought into conformity with the requirements of that Convention. The Committee once again invites the Government to make its best effort to give favourable consideration to the ratification of Convention No. 171, which, contrary to Convention No. 89, no longer follows a gender-oriented perspective but addresses the issue of night work for both men and women in its occupational safety and health dimension. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the Government’s report, in particular the ratification of the Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in the light of changed circumstances and demands from various women’s organizations and also in view of the Protocol of 1990, it has decided to amend section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, in order to ensure greater flexibility in the application of the Convention while maintaining adequate safeguards. Recalling that according to Article 1 of the Protocol, exemptions from the prohibition on women’s night work and variations in the duration of the night period may be introduced by decision of the competent authority provided that the employers and workers concerned or their representatives have concluded an agreement to this effect at the branch or enterprise level, the Committee requests the Government to specify in its next report the legislative provisions giving effect to the requirements of the Protocol and to transmit a copy of the amended text of section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948. Moreover, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Protocol which lay down the principle that, even though the prohibition on the night work of women may in practice be lifted in specific branches of activity and occupations or specific establishments, minimum protection is still needed for pregnant women workers and nursing mothers and therefore an outright prohibition on night work should continue to apply at least during the eight weeks preceding childbirth and the eight weeks following it, whereas appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the income maintenance and the protection of female employees against unfair dismissal during the period of compulsory absence from work on maternity grounds. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that national legislation is fully consonant with the above provisions. Moreover, the Committee would be grateful to the Government for providing in its next report, in accordance with Part V of the report form and Article 3 of the Protocol, all available information concerning the practical application of the Convention, including for instance extracts from reports of inspection services, statistics on the number of workers covered by relevant legislation, information on the variations and exemptions introduced pursuant to the Protocol, etc. Finally, the Committee invites the Government to give favourable consideration to the ratification of the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171), which shifts the emphasis from a specific category of workers and sector of economic activity to the safety and health protection of night workers irrespective of gender in nearly all branches and occupations. The Committee asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision taken in this regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's report and the observations by the National Front of Indian Trade Unions (NFITU) and the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) submitted with the report.

In its previous observations, the Committee has been commenting on the discrepancy between the exemptions to the prohibition of night work of women under section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the requirements under Article 5 of the Convention. It recalls that, under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it and after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations concerned.

In reply, the Government states that it is aware that the Factory Act, 1948, is not fully in conformity with Article 5 of the Convention, but that there is no proposal to amend the Factories Act at the moment. The Government refers to the judgements of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras, which restrain the Government from taking any action against employers for permitting any willing woman employee to work in their factories during night hours. The report indicates that the Government is yet to make a final decision as to whether the Convention should be denounced or the Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948, should be ratified.

The Committee takes due note of the above information. It also notes that the NFITU points out the absence of implementation of the Convention in the unorganized sector, and that the CITU is opposing the Government's attempt to change the existing legislation which restricts the night work of women. The CITU argues that the reasons for the restriction (such as family responsibilities, health concern and security issues) not only continue to exist but have intensified in the impact, and underlines that the demand for women's night work comes especially in the export processing zones.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate any development in the abovementioned consideration of its position as to this Convention, including its observation on the points raised by the CITU. It also requests the Government in the meantime to continue providing information on the application of the Convention in practice, with particular reference to the unorganized sector mentioned by the NFITU. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to fully consult the employers' and workers' organizations before taking a final decision as to whether the Convention should be denounced or the Protocol should be ratified.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in January 1998 in relation to a communication addressed to the ILO in 1997 by the Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union. It also notes a communication from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) addressed to the ILO in July 1998. Finally, with reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the latest report of the Government, which contains information in reply to its previous comments, as well as the observations of the CITU and the Government's responses on the issue of the hours of work in the rail transport sector and their conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

With reference to the observation that it made in 1993, the Committee recalls that the Central Railway Mazadour Sangh claims eight-hour shifts for cabinmen, levermen, pointsmen and guardsmen and states that these personnel, whose work has been classified as "essentially intermittent", are providing services for traffic which is ten times greater than at the time of the adoption of the rules concerning their working hours. The Committee requested the Government to transmit the results of the most recent job analyses concerning these groups of workers. In its latest report, the Government states that job analyses are undertaken for each category of workers upon request and adds, by way of illustration, that pointsmen at Ghoradogri Station in Nagpur Division have recently benefited from a reclassification of their work as increased pressure of work gave rise to an analysis of their jobs. Noting the examples of the job analyses provided by the Government, the Committee requests it to indicate the manner in which the organizations of employers and workers participate in these analysis and classification procedures. In this respect, it wishes to recall the obligation to consult the representative organizations set out in Article 6 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the exchange of communications between the Government and the ILO on the question of a modification to the wording of Article 10 of the Convention. In this respect, it requests the Government to indicate the action that it intends taking as a result, and whether it envisages adopting measures along the lines proposed by the ILO.

With reference to its direct request of 1994, in which it recalled the allegations made by the Calcutta Dock Workers' Union, to the effect that since 1982, the escorts and guards employed by Coal India Ltd. have been working continuously for 24 hours a day without any break, the Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the allegations are incorrect and that escorts and guards work in shifts according to schedules that are in accordance with the legislation. It requests it to indicate the legal provisions which are applicable in this respect and to specify the available information which enables it to establish that the allegations made by the Calcutta Dock Workers' Union are unfounded.

With regard to the action taken in the courts against an employer in the Goa region for the violation of the industrial legislation that is in force on the grounds of the conditions of employment accorded to workers from the Palamoori region, the Committee notes the information contained in a communication of April 1997 from the Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union, as well as a communication from the Government to the ILO in January 1998 providing copies of the decisions of the judicial bodies concerned. It requests the Government to continue providing such information, where appropriate, in accordance with point V of the report form.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee has been commenting on the exemptions made to the prohibition of night work of women under section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948. It notes the Government has supplied further information regarding exemptions granted to factories of various sectors in different states.

The Committee also notes the Government's statement in the report that these exemptions are in conformity with the the Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89). It points out that the Protocol of 1990 has not so far been ratified by India, and that the Government therefore has the obligation to ensure the application of the provisions of the Convention and not the Protocol, as long as the latter has not been ratified.

The Committee recalls once again that under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it and after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations concerned. It asks the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken to bring practice into conformity with national laws and the international commitments which have been undertaken.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report received in December 1997. It also notes the observation made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), supplied in the report. The Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union sent an observation to the Office in April 1997 denouncing, inter alia, the 13-hour working day as well as the lack of a weekly rest day for the Palamoori workers in the Goa region. A copy of the communication was sent to the Government which has not, as yet, made any comments. The Committee intends to examine these matters at its 1998 Session.

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

1. Further to its direct request of 1994, the Committee reminds the Government that it has not yet commented on the allegations of non-observance of the Convention made by the Calcutta Dock Workers' Union, to the effect that, since 1982, the escorts and guards employed by Coal India Ltd. have to work for 24 hours continuously without any break.

2. The Committee notes the communication from the Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union to the effect that workers in the Palamoori district work 12 hours per day and that overtime is not remunerated at the proper rates. The Committee likewise notes the comments of the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat which also complains of a 12-hour working day and the lack of proper overtime remuneration for the employees of the thermal power station belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Board. In its reply, the Government states that the working conditions which the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat objected to affect not the workers at the thermal power station, but self-employed workers known as mukadams, who are under contract to the Shital Traders company to separate burnt coal ash from flowing water. They work an 8-hour day on average and the company pays them piece-work rates per ton of coal ash separated. The Government adds that the trade union has filed a complaint with the judicial court against Shital Traders for breach of the Factories Act, and a complaint on the same matter with the Gujarat High Court. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of further action in this matter and to provide copies of any judgements or decisions handed down by the courts examining the cases.

3. Furthermore, the Committee recalls its observation of 1993 which read as follows:

The Committee notes that Chapter XIV of the Railways Act, 1989, contains the main rules for the working time of railroad personnel. It asks the Government to provide a copy of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV. The Committee further notes that the Government has initiated action to frame rules and subsidiary instructions in accordance with these provisions. It asks the Government to keep it fully informed of progress made in this respect.

The Committee notes the circular dated 13 April 1992 addressed to the general managers of the All Indian Railways, in which statutory hours of work for "essentially intermittent" work are set at 75 hours per week. The Government has supplied no information on consultations held with the organizations of employers and workers concerned before the adoption of these work schedules. The Committee would like to underline the importance of such consultations, required under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and trusts that the Government will not fail to engage in such consultations when establishing work schedules for workers performing preparatory, complementary and essentially intermittent work.

In this connection, the Committee notes the comments of the Central Railway Mazadoor Sangh, requesting 8-hour shifts for cabinmen, levermen, pointsmen and gatemen. The Government indicates that their work was classified to be "essentially intermittent", with periods of inaction aggregating to six hours or more in a tour of 12 hours of duty. However, the Central Railway Mazadoor Sangh claims that they were servicing approximately 20 to 40 trains in 12 hours, i.e. a traffic ten times greater than it was when the British rules were adopted. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide the results of the most recent job analysis concerning this group of workers.

Lastly, the Committee notes, further to its previous observations, that the Government will soon take a decision in reply to the observations of the Bharatiya Mazadoor Sangh, which considered the special provisions contained in Article 10 to be discriminatory against India, and invited the Government to consider denouncing the Convention or to take an initiative aimed at revising it.

4. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the points raised above.

The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's reply to the comments made by the Centre of India Trade Unions (CITU) in which the Government indicates that, in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention, section 66 of the Factories Act 1948 does not authorize the employment of women beyond ten o'clock in the evening. It also notes that the employment of women in night shifts at the hosiery units in Tirupur (Tamil Nadu) has been considered and that the State Government of Tamil Nadu has indicated that in no factory have women workers been employed beyond 10 p.m. It notes further that, in 1994, 17 clothing factories in Tirupur were granted permission to employ women workers up to 10 p.m. Furthermore, the State Governments of Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Assam, Gujarat and Kerala have by specific notifications authorized the employment of women between 7 p.m. only and 10 p.m. in a few units, subject to certain conditions, e.g. transportation, security, food for women workers, etc. The Government states also that, under section 66 of the same Factories Act, night work for women has also been allowed up to 10 p.m. in the States of Madhya Pradesh (in the ginning factories and Hotline Tele-tube and Components Ltd., Malanpur, for a period of three years); Goa (for the fish processing unit and the textile unit); Orissa in Ipitron Time Ltd., Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneshwar and Kalinga Iron Works, Distt. Keonjhar and Tripura (work in fish curing or fish canning factories). The Committee notes these indications and considers that the number of exemptions and the number of States involved are both on the increase.

The Committee recalls once again that under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it and after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations concerned. The Committee recalls the adoption by the International Labour Conference of the Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89), in order to allow greater flexibility. It asks the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken to bring practice into conformity with national laws and the international commitments which have been undertaken.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information and the comments made by the Centre of India Trade Unions (CITU) supplied by the Government in its report.

Article 5 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the Government's reply to earlier comments that the Government of Pondichery has from time to time authorized exemptions from prohibition on night work in three textile factories, by virtue of section 5 of the Factories Act of 1948.

The Committee notes the Government's increased efforts to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 under which women workers will not be employed in the night shift and no exemption will be granted after 26 October 1993, when the last exemption order expires. From information supplied in the report of the Government by CITU, the Committee also notes that the night shifts for women are very rare because the employment of women is dwindling. However, in Tirupur (Tamil Nadu) women are employed in clothing industries during the night shifts. The Committee further recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it, and, after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations concerned. The Committee therefore continues to ask the Government to provide information in its future reports on any progress made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information from the Culcutta Dock Workers' Union to the effect that since 1982, the escorts and guards employed by Coal India Ltd have to work for 24 hours continuously without any break.

The comments were sent to the Government on 16 September 1993, but so far it has not submitted its observations on them.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on this case at the earliest possible date so that an appropriate examination can be conducted of the above-mentioned union's allegations of non-observance of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee noted from the Government's last report that the Government of Pondichery has from time to time authorized exemptions from the prohibition on night work in three textile factories, by virtue of section 5 of the Factories Act of 1948.

The Committee asked the Government to state in what circumstances these exemptions were granted and to indicate the employers' and workers' organizations that were consulted. It recalled that under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it, and after consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations concerned. It requested the Government to provide information on any other cases where exemptions from the prohibition of night work for women may have been authorized.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the information in the Government's report, in reply to its earlier observation. In particular, it notes that Chapter XIV of the Railways Act, 1989, contains the main rules for the working time of railroad personnel. The Committee requests the Government to furnish a copy of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV. It further notes that the Government has initiated action to frame rules and subsidiary instructions in accordance with these provisions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed about all progress in establishing rules and subsidiary instructions.

The Committee also takes note of the circular dated 13 April 1992 addressed to the general managers of the All Indian Railways, in which statutory hours of work for "essentially intermittent" work are set to 75 hours per week. The Government has supplied no information on consultations with the organizations of employers and workers concerned before the adoption of these work schedules. The Committee would like to underline the importance of such consultations required under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention and trusts that the Government will not fail to engage in such consultations when establishing work schedules for workers performing preparatory, complementary and essentially intermittent work.

In this connection, the Committee notes the comments of the "Central Railway Mazadoor Sangh" requesting eight-hour shifts for cabinmen, levermen, pointsmen and gatemen. The Government indicates that their work was classified to be "essentially intermittent", with periods of inaction aggregating to six hours or more in a tour of 12 hours of duty. However, the Central Railway Mazadoor Sangh claims that they were servicing approximately 20 to 40 trains in 12 hours, i.e. a traffic ten times more important than it was when the British rules were adopted. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would make available to it the results of the most recent job analysis concerning this group of workers.

Finally, the Committee notes, further to its previous observation, that the Government will soon take a decision in reply to the observations of the "Bharatiya Mazadoor Sangh" organization, which considered the special provisions contained in Article 10 of the Convention to be discriminatory against India, and invited the Government to consider denouncing the Convention or to take an initiative aimed at revising it.

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

Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government's last report that the Government of Pondichery has from time to time authorised exemptions from the prohibition on night work in three textile factories, by virtue of section 5 of the Factories Act of 1948.

The Committee asks the Government to state in what circumstances these exemptions were granted and to indicate the employers' and workers' organisations that were consulted. It recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention, the prohibition of night work for women may be suspended only when, in case of serious emergency, the national interest demands it, and after consultation with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned. It requests the Government to provide information it its future reports, on any other cases where exemptions from the prohibition of night work for women may have been authorised.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report, in reply to its earlier observation. In particular, it takes note of the circular dated 26 April 1985 addressed to the general managers of the railways, requesting them to ensure that running staff are not made to work beyond a reasonable limit.

The Committee considers that this circular, couched in general and imprecise terms, falls short of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. It recalls that, under that provision, regulations made by public authorities must determine the exceptions permitted to normal limits and the maximum of additional hours that may be allowed; the said regulations must be made only after consultation with the organisations of employers and workers concerned. The Committee hopes that the Government will, without delay, adopt such measures as may be required to give effect to those provisions of the Convention and that it will inform the ILO thereof forthwith.

Lastly, the Committee notes the observations made by the "Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh" organisation, concerning the special provisions contained in Article 10 and inviting the Government to consider denouncing the Convention or taking an initiative aimed at revising it.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

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

In its observations the CITU raises the following questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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