It was probably Sheikh Saadi, who wrote that every ruler who comes, seeks to lay down foundation anew. This old wisdom was never more true when applied to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and to its labour policy by its ruler. These are the two unmistakable sign-posts of every regime.

One need not recount the changes ushered in by the Ayubian “revolution”, the Yahya era and the Bhutto interregnums, followed by Ziaul Haque’s ‘discovery’ of Islam or the re-discovery of democracy during the bouts of Nawaz Sharif or the Lady Benazir.

What is beyond comprehension is why the military regime has introduced a new labour policy and a fresh labour legislation at the end, or at least the purported end, of military dictatorship rather than at its beginning. May be this s in keeping with a new constitution or the LFO inaugurating the “transferor Power”. But economics is the foundation stone of every politics and in our country, labour policy and legislation is an important post of this foundation stone. So it may explain the mighty hurry in introducing a new Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 before the newly elected parliament is called to session and the mundane affair of installing a new chief executive prime minister, call him what you will, takes place.

The very first feature of the new law which strikes one’s eye is the widening of the scope and application of the Industrial Ordinance 2002. Installation and services are excluded from the application of labour law only if” exclusively connected with the armed “forces. Similarly, establishments for the treatment care of the sick, are excluded except those run on commercial basis. The definition of industry excludes business set up exclusively for charitable purposes and though charitable purpose is defined to include provisions of education, medical care and other needs of the poor, a rider is put that in order to being qualified to be excluded in the category of charitable institutions, it should be “operating” through public or private donations.

However this “liberalism” is revealed for all its worth when the definition of the term “employer” is looked at.No more the requirement of a fig leaf of written agreement between the “owner” and “contractor”, no more the liability of the “contractor” for the faithful implementation of labour laws.

The contractor is not even required to carry out any operation or perform the motion of paying wages to its employer. Now a labour “supplier” namely a contractor or an establishment who or which undertakes to procure the labour or services of workmen for use by another person or in another establishment for any purpose and for payment in any form and on any basis whatsoever”, is the employer. The commodity namely “labour” is supplied to “another person for use” who does not have any liability as an employer of labour; and “use” for any purpose may include the purposes of prostitution or immoral purposes”. Payment in any form “may mean the payment to the Supplier as a lump sum payment of the body of a person as in the case of a “slave” in the slave market.

We may therefore see soon enough industries without any worker employed therein but only “persons supplied for us” upon whose “usage” no labour laws apply.

Workmen and trade unions: The definition of the term “workman” is a repeat of the provisions contained in the pre-partition Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Read in conjunction with the definition of the term “industrial dispute” under the Pakistani law which exclude matters of right enforceable under any law etc. the insistence that dismissed workman cannot claim to be a workman unless his dismissal is the consequence or the cause of an industrial dispute, means effectively taking out the question of service security from the pale of labour laws.

There is an under current which may be called the underlying spirit of the law to put ever increasing restrictions on the formation and functioning of Trade Unions even apart from the definitional “strait-Jacket”. Ironically under section 3, which deals with the subject “Trade Unions and Freedom of Association”, the condition is laid down that every collective bargaining agent shall have to affiliate with a Federation at the national level registered with the N.I.R.C. within two months of its being declared a CBA or the passing of this enactment.

This provision is a classic example of how to “make the way to hell appear paved with good intentions”. To the knowledge of the present Writer, there are only three Federations at the national level which are registered with the N.I.R.C. and all the three are an international affiliate of I.C.F.T.U. (International Confederation of Trade Unions). One can’t help the notion arising that this provision is intended to get rid of “Un-American” Trade Unions in the country, because it is hardly likely that other National Federations can be registered within two months with the N.I.R.C.

The minimum requirement of 1/5th of the total number of workers being members has been now raised to 1/4th in case of a third union seeking registration.

Further conditions for cancellation of the registration of a union are spelt out in the provisions where a registered union which does not contest in a referendum or secures less than 15 per cent of the votes in a referendum loses the registration. One would have wished that the minimum qualifying percentage would have been first applicable in the General Elections and the political parties. That may come some day. Meanwhile registration of National Federation with the N.I.R.C. are made more onerous.

Legal remedies: Whereas the trend of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was to divert trade unionism in the channels of individual grievances and litigationism (law courts) the new Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 makes the availability of even legal justice and the so-called enforcement of rights through law courts more inaccessible. The workers will have to wait for the treatment of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 at the hands of the Military Masters before a final verdict is given on the final shape of things to come. In the meanwhile the Labour Appellate Tribunal chaired by a retired Judge of the High Court is abolished and the right of appeal given to the High Court. Is it because a retired judge is less wise than a serving High Court judge or the former has burnt all his boats.

But a “new” approach to the problem of industrial relationship is also visible, right from the beginning in the Statement of the preamble and is further weighted down by the rights of the employer spelled out in Schedule-II which is to include” the right to manage, control and use his property of the enterprise and conclude the business considered most appropriate by the employer who have the right to use all available services, efficiently, effectively and in the best interest of the enterprises, including human resources.”

All in all, the new Labour Legislation opens the way not for the improvement of relations between the employer and his workmen but their deterioration and worsening. Not without reason, the Industrial Relations Advisers Association and those appearing for the workers as well as the employers unanimously resolved that the law be withdrawn and the matter be brought before the newly elected parliament.