Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adhocism in The Decisions To Modify Labour Laws
Adhocism in The Decisions To Modify Labour Laws
K Chandru (saraskrish1951@gmail.com) is a
former judge of the High Court of Madras.
EPW
COMMENTARY
Sangh (BMS), an affiliate of the BJP. Having sounded the bugle from Rajasthan,
the Modi government followed it up
with its own proposals to amend labour
laws. Its first attempt will be to revamp
the Factories Act. Minister of State for
Mines, Steel, and Labour Vishnu Deo told
the Lok Sabha in a written reply that the
proposed major amendments will include relaxing restrictions on night duty
for women in factories, subject to certain
conditions, and increasing the limit of
overtime to 100 hours (now 50 hours) in
a quarter. He further told Parliament that
the process of amending the Factories
Act had been initiated in 2011 with the
government setting up an expert panel
headed by Planning Commission member Narendra Jadhav. In recent times, it
has become routine for spokespersons of
the BJP government to attribute any unpopular move to decisions taken by the
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. The Modi government, on 5 June
and 17 June, introduced the proposed
amendments to the Factories Act, 1948
and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(The Ministry of Labour has posted
the proposals on the website and has
sought comments.)
National Labour Commission
India undoubtedly has the lengthiest
labour legislations in the world. There
are as many as 50 central laws, besides
each state having umpteen local labour
legislations. From time to time, there
have been demands from many quarters to consolidate and simplify labour
legislations. There have been demands
from trade unions and employers to make
the necessary changes to the laws, and
they were raised before the first National
Labour Commission (NLC) presided over
by Justice P B Gajendragadkar. In its
1969 report, the NLC suggested cosmetic
changes, such as that the name of the
IDA should be changed to Industrial
Relations Act so that it would not
sound a discordant note and encourage
smooth industrial relations. The report
also recommended the consolidation
of the Trade Unions Act (1923), the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act (1946), and the Industrial Disputes
Act (1947).
july 26, 2014
EPW
COMMENTARY
EPW
vol xlIX no 30
17
COMMENTARY
The economic reforms and the dilution of labour legislations have brought
unprecedented misery to the working
masses in our country. Ever rising prices
have eroded the real value of their wages,
which have put their health in jeopardy.
Fast shrinking public health services and
the lack of medical insurance for the
poor have added to their problems.
Manipulation by Association
Is the Private Sector Undermining
Nutrition?
Arun Gupta, J P Dadhich, Navdeep Singh Khaira, Radha Holla
18
There are no jobs that provide a sustainable income for workers. Whatever is on
offer is contractual or casual in nature
with long hours, terrible work conditions,
and no security. To top it all, the fundamental right to organise and agitate for
better wages, better working conditions,
and a better life is being crushed systematically. The working class certainly did
not bargain for this parivartan (change)
from the new government.
Feeding Bottles, and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 (IMS Act) and more than
a decade to strengthen it.1 Attempts
were made to repeal it in 2005, but a
public campaign saved it (Rajalakshmi
2005). The IMS Act prohibits advertising
and promoting foods to be consumed by
children under the age of two. It also
bans giving gifts, and sponsoring health
workers or their associations.
Manipulation by Association
Historically, examples of manipulation
by assistance have been documented
more often, manipulation by association
is a relatively new phenomenon.
(1) Lancet Series Authors are Members
of a Food Company Committee: Two of
the lead authors of the new Lancet series
on Maternal and Child Nutrition, published in June 2013,2 declared a conflict
of interest as members of the board of the
Nestl Creating Shared Value Advisory
Committee (Black et al 2013a, b). The
Lancets rules on conflict of interest refer
to both financial and personal conflicts
of interest. However, it is not clear what
applied in this case. Was there any
effort to eliminate or manage conflicts
of interest? We believe these authors do
subscribe to the food companys viewpoint if they chose to sit on a committee
created by it. Nestl is the worlds largest
food company, and it violates national
laws and the Code on a routine basis
(Save the Children 2013; Kean and
Allain 2010). Given that policymakers
often rely on the Lancet, it behoves the
journal to prevent any conflict of interest.
Nestl has admitted paying the committee
members an annual fee of CHF 25,000,
vol xlIX no 30
EPW