The proposal for an open debate on labour law reforms has been mooted in the Economic Survey 2009-10. It has been argued that the reforms in labour laws, especially the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would ensure faster economic and employment growth in the country.

It may be noted that only the idea of Government initiating an open debate on the crucial issue of labour reforms seems novel, coming as it does from the Government circles. Otherwise, the erstwhile NDA Government had also made a determined move to amend the labour laws. NDA finance minister Yashwant Sinha in his Budget(2001-02) speech had even assured that his government's Labour Minister would be moving amendments to Section V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Contract Labour Act in that very Parliament session. That it could not happen because of differences within the NDA Government is a different matter. Employers had been pressing for these amendments whereas the central trade union organizations (CTUOs) were opposed to them.

What has the Finance Ministry now said in its Economic Survey about the prevailing situation which gives it the confidence to enter into a debate with the opponents of labour law reforms?

“Almost all international studies conclude”, the Survey says, “that India's labour regulatory structure does not have the flexibility commensurate with a buoyant, growing economy.” These studies acquire special importance for the UPA Government which is aiming at maximum inflow of FDI in all sectors of economy and is even getting ready to allow 100 per cent FDI in the Defence Production Sector.

It is further argued that for firms in the organised sector having more than a critical number of workers, “it is extremely hard to retrench or downsize the labour force.” The Survey argues that, on the face of it, such a legislation looks like pro-labour, one that protects the interests of the workers. But, in practice, it works the other way. This is because “most potential firms are far-sighted enough to realise that, once they become sufficiently large in terms of employment, if they need to later retrench workers because the demand for their product slacks off, they will not be able to do so easily.”

In this backdrop, such firms have only two options: either to remain small or not to go into business at all, the Survey says, adding that there is a logic behind such behaviour of investors: All laws also play an expressionist role whereby they affect behaviour beyond the actual ambit of the law. All this makes the Survey conclude that if labour laws like the ID Act, 1947 are appropriately reformed, there will be greater demand for labour and “through that improve economic well-being of workers.”'

It must be remembered that all these exercises of the reformed Think Tank of the Finance Ministry were going on at the time when nine central trade union organisations had, for the first time, unitedly taken up cudgels with the Central Government on the demand for implementation of labour laws and social security for workers suffering joblessness and job losses due to the global crisis and slowdown. This very period had witnessed, on the one hand, serving of stimulus packages worth a couple of lakh crores to help business and industry meet the challenge of crisis and slowdown and, on the other, the world watched the growth of Indian billionaires club as well as dimensional widening of disparities in the socio-economic life, having their own unsocial and anti-social manifestations.

To play down their negative features in the country's socio-economic life, the Economic Survey develops yet another debatable point. It is argued, it says, that changes in labour laws are likely to have negligible impact one way or the other, because these are applicable to the organised sector which is “minuscule”. It then gives a counter argument too: if the labour regulatory system is reformed, the organised sector may grow faster for, the amended regulatory system would “influence the culture and custom of the labour market and encourage employment in the organised sector. “

A government that has been bending over backwards to promote liberalisation, privatisation and globalised (LPG) market economy has the temerity to now suggest “ways in which workers can gain power”. These Finance Ministry's brain trustees are either a thoughtless group or think they can fool others for, they hold the power strings and can dictate.

Indian workers have a hundred years struggle behind them during which they fought for freedom of the country as well as for their own rights. And, in the post-Independence years, they contributed to building a mixed economy on public-private sector pattern. These policy makers should know that nobody gave the workers rights on a platter. Moreover, labour laws were amended over the years; they will again be amended as and when the need arises but never for enabling the privatisers to make maximum profits and then kick out workers remorselessly.

The Survey says: “The need is to bring these laws into the public space for open discussion and the weighing of the available scientific evidence, and then take decisions based on what emerges from such an exercise.” Dr. Manmohan Singh has been leading the UPA Government for the second time. Who prevented his Government from bringing these laws into public space for open discussion? Its practice in the labour sphere has been almost dictatorial.

For instance, CTUOs were able to meet the Prime Minister only once all these years to convey their problems to him. He promised to meet them again after receiving comments on their demands from the concerned Ministries. That day has not dawned during the last five years. Unlike any previous Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh chose to completely ignore the country's highest tripartite body - the Indian Labour Conference (ILC). The PMO refused to give a date for the ILC which was reportedly delayed for, the Labour Ministry waited for a date from the PMO.

The PM's Economic Advisory Council is studded with corporate kings and experts selected accordingly. Corporate kings feel no difficulty in calling on the PM or any minister. Its impact can be seen from the Government's dealing with the problems in the labour sphere. The worst is what is happening in the Special Economic Zones (SEZs), where police commissioners are given charge of settling labour disputes if any. There as well as in upcoming new state-of-the-art industrial complexes as in Gurgaon and around, even unionization is treated as a crime.

Unless the organised labour is able to force the issue, the entire Labour conciliation organisation, both at the Centre and in the States, remains immobile. Both the Government and the corporate sector sing praises of the 92 per cent unorganised workers; they remain mute watchers.

Acting dictatorially vis-a-vis labour and their problems and talking in terms of democracy and debate on labour law reforms - this is the new way of the ruling LPG policy-makers. Workers have no other option but to fight for their survival and betterment. (IPA Service)