Ever since the IRO, 2002 has been promulgated, there is a persistent demand from workers to repeal it altogether on the ground that it has adversely affected their rights.
But instead of repealing the ordinance, it would be more advisable to make necessary amendments in the light of recommendations of the Tripartite Labour Conference which needs to be held before labour laws are changed. The former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had also held such a conference before making extensive amendments in the various labour laws and promulgating new laws.
This article highlights major changes made in the IRO 2002 to show which of them are against workers’ interest and which are in their favour. The need of this new ordinance was felt to boost exports by relaxing certain provisions of the IRO 1969, ( as amended from time to time) in favour of employers without withdrawing the substantial benefits enjoyed by workers. In this article, the words ‘the repealed law” and the ‘repealing law’ will be used in place of IRO-1969 and IRO-2000, respectively.
The most important and controversial provision relates to the application of the law on various establishments and their workers.
In both the laws, most of the provisions are the same except that the ‘repealing law’ excluded those employed by an institution established for payment of employees’ Old Age pensions or for workers’ welfare, and as a member of Watch and Ward, Security or Fire Service Staff of a seaport or an airport.
The workers resent that the federal government has been given powers to suspend, in the public interest, the application of the law to any establishment or industry for a specified period, not exceeding six months, at a time. This power has been exercised in many cases.
Under the ‘repealing law, it’ is not applicable on establishments for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on commercial basis. This exclusion was not there in the ‘repealed law’. As such, the hospitals and dispensaries run on commercial basis have been covered for trade union activities which is beneficial to workers
Under the ‘repealing law’, the term of office of the office-bearers of the executive committee of a trade union has been extended from two to three years. It is beneficial to workers.
Under the ‘repealed law,’ there was a provision for workers’ participation in management of establishments with 50 or more workers. Under this provision, the collective bargaining agent had a right to nominate an auditor to audit accounts of a factory for the second time to inspect the records, premises and stores to authenticate the correctness or otherwise of the figures of the first audit conducted by the auditor appointed by the employer. The government was bound to appoint any one from the panel of three chartered accountants proposed by the workers for audit.
This provision was a great source of nuisance to the employers. Three chartered accountants teamed up with the office-bearers of various collective bargaining agents and threatened the employers with an adverse report. Workers in general did not benefit from this provision.
Under the repealed law, there was a provision for “redressal of individual grievances. In case of any grievance, workers used to apply before labour courts and file appeals in the Labour Appellate Tribunal and even approached the High Court, if necessary. Under the ‘repealing law, the institution of Labour Appellate Tribunal has been abolished and an aggrieved person has to file an appeal in the High Court directly against the decision of a labour court This has created problems, specially for the poor workers. The Labour Appellate Tribunal- a retired judge of the High Court-- was working smoothly. and cheaply. The abolition of the tribunal has been resented by the workers and rightly so.
Another point in respect of individual grievances is the question of reinstatement of a worker in case of wrongful termination of his services. It was a must in the repealed law. Under the ‘repealing law’, the labour court may award compensation equivalent to not less than 12 months and not more than 30 months last drawn basic pay and house rent, if admissible, in lieu of reinstatement .
This provision is criticised by workers as well as employers. Workers want reinstatement. The employers complain that the amount of compensation is not only very high but also serves as an encouragement to workers to indulge in acts of misconduct to get handsome compensation, after getting the termination declared as wrongful.
Under the ‘repealed law’, the penalties were both imprisonment or fine or both.. Under the ‘repealing law’, the penalty of imprisonment has been removed and the amount of fine has been enhanced. There seems no resentment on it on either side.
Under the repealed law, there was a provision of constitution of a Wage Commission for fixing rates of wages and determining all the other terms and conditions of service in respect of workers of a bank or such other workers as the federal government might specify.
This provision was introduced in 1975. to look after the affairs of workers of nationalised banks and financial institutions. As most of the nationalised banks have been privatised, it was, perhaps, not felt necessary to incorporate this provision in the ‘repealing law’. Hence it was omitted.