THE Pakistan People’s Party has adopted an interim Industrial Relations Bill- 2008 in the Senate to replace the Industrial Relations Ordinance-2002.

The interim bill would be replaced in the next 18 months or two years by a permanent new Industrial Relations Act, say press reports. Any industrial legislation provides a legal foundation upon which labour-management relations are built with balanced rights and interests while the government acts as a guarantor and a watchdog to ensure industrial peace and harmony.

The need to replace the Industrial Relations Ordinance-2002 (IRO-2002) is legitimate for it is a demand of millions of industrial workers. While the effort towards that change is in the right direction, the way it is being pursued through an interim bill would later pave the way for legal complications which are easily avoidable.

The elected representatives have a chance to come up with a piece of legislation which is efficient and enjoys the trust of all the parties concerned. But they appear to face the same pitfalls as their predecessor did. However, the following points should be considered in order to have a clear approach towards a new piece of legislation:

First ,if the IRO-2002 has to be discarded, the Industrial Relations Bill-2008 would become legally complex, giving rise to needless discussions, because it is not a new bill with fresh contents. Sensing the popular demand of restoring IRO-1969 and the need to evolve a more permanent piece of legislation in another two years’ time, legislators are using IRO-1969 as a base for new interim bill while not fully restoring it with a number of amendments. This approach would be unnecessarily a convoluted exercise giving rise to a lot of confusion. Why not simply add various amendments to the IRO-2002? It would be easier to amend the existing legislation with certain favourable features of the IRO-1969.

Second, after passing the interim bill based on IRO-1969 or IRO-2002, the judicial explanation and interpolation of various terminologies and case-laws have to be developed and new disputes to be settled all over again. This will go on while the clock will keep ticking for two years. Under the given circumstances, it is difficult to say when or whether at all this piece of legislation would get materialised.

Third, it is not clear whether the new interim bill would completely restore the IRO-1969. But if it is so, it will also revive a number of provisions which were obsolete even when the legislation was in force. Some of these are: definition of a workman (Sec 2), archaic structures like Workers’ Participation in Management and Joint Management Board (Sec 23-B and C), and provision of “compensation in lieu of reinstatement” in case of worker is aggrieved by his wrongful termination from service (Sec 46(5).

On the other hand, if the new interim bill would not fully restore the IRO-1969, rather new features would be added to it, obsolete sections would be removed and certain other sections like the forum of Labour Appellate Tribunal (Sec 38) to provide “speedy justice” would be revived. Between 2000-2002, the debate was going on the promulgation of new IRO which eventually became IRO-2002. It was suggested by all stakeholders, including this writer, to eliminate the additional legal forum of Labour Appellate Tribunal for “speedy justice” in case, other measures were to be adopted. Unfortunately, Appellate Tribunal was eliminated without adopting any of the recommended measures, nullifying all its benefits. Once again, Labour Appellate Tribunal forum is being revived for precisely the reason it was eliminated.

Fourth, The existing IRO has been in operation for the last seven years and whatever harm it caused to industrial peace and harmony has already been done. If it is allowed to operate for another two years, there will not be any harm on continuous basis. Nor there is any legal vacuum at the moment which must be filled with something else. All stakeholders have already suggested numerous amendments in it including the ‘conclusions and recommendations’ of the ILO’s committee on Freedom of Association.

All these amendments and recommendations once incorporated in the IRO, 2002 would eliminate almost all violations, complaints and sources of tension. Hence the easiest path for the legislators to follow is to amend the existing IRO-2002.

The judiciary has developed thousands of case-laws over the last seven years which are valuable assets. In future, negotiations can continue among all stakeholders until a new permanent piece of legislation is written.