950812

Labour-employer rights

Cabinet body suggests

via media procedure

for service ending

TANVIR ZAHID

LAHORE: The Cabinet committee entrusted with the examination of the report of the Task Force on Labour, in its major recommendation has suggested measures for streamlining of service termination procedure and ensuring protection of the rights of both workers and employers.

The Committee was constituted when the federal Cabinet took up consideration of the report of the Task Force on Labour headed by MNA Azeez Memon early this year for making recommendations on the report in two months' time in consultation with all.

The committee comprised the Federal Minister for Industries and Production Brigadier (Rtd) Mohammad Asghar, Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Anwar Saifullah Khan, Minister for Commerce Ch. Ahmad Mukhtar, Minister of State for Labour Akbar Lassi, Chairman of the Privatization Commission and MNA Syed Naveed Qamar, Federal Secretary Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis Division Sultan Hameed and an Additional Secretary from the Prime Minister's Secretariat.

Since another Committee with almost the same mandate was set up prior to the setting up of the Cabinet Committee by the directive of the Prime Minister, two members of that Committee, namely Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan, Media Consultant to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and former Federal Labour Minister Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production Viqar Rustam Bakhsi were co-opted by the Cabinet Committee with the approval of the Prime Minister to accomplish the task before it.

According to the information available from well-informed sources to Business Recorder here on Saturday, the Cabinet in its six meetings prior to finalization of its recommendations on the Labour Task Force report focused its deliberations, inter-alia, on employers' demand for the right to hire and fire, need for simplification of dismissal procedure, induction of outsiders in the executives of the trade unions at plant level, proliferation of trade unions, contract labour, uniform application of labour laws etc.

Regarding the employers' demand for the right of hire and fire, the Committee in its recommendations, which have since been submitted, has opined that the law relating to termination of service may be streamlined to create a balance between workers' and employers' rights.

The Committee was of the view that the workers are required to be protected against insecurities and job hazards, and employers are to be facilitated to discipline and control their workmen for the efficient performance of their business and industry.

Accordingly, the Committee has suggested that, in order to create this balance and prompt harmon and trust relationship between the parties in this connection, the law may be amended to;

- dispense with the requirement of enquiry under Standing Order 15;

- give option to the worker either to make petition to the employer or approach directly to Labour Court under Section 25 A, and

- reduce the time limit of three months to one month under the above section enabling the workman to file his grievance petition to the employer or the Labour Court, as the case may be.

The Committee has further recommended that as this amendment will balance the rights of both the parties and discourage lengthy litigation, the law relating to assgining reasons in the case of termination of services of a workman as laid down in Standing Order 12 may be retained.

Regarding dismissal procedure and redressal of workers' grievances, the Committee was of the consideration that the law relating to assigning of reasons to terminate the services of a workman (as laid down in Standing Order 12 of Ordinance No. VI of 1968, developed further under the Labour Policy of 1972) should be retained, because it fosters confidence in workers, brings stability in employment relationship, builds up trust between workers and employers and meets the requirements of natural justice and has been upheld by the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Federal Shariat Court.

The sources pointed out that the issue of restoration of the right of termination simpliciter to the employer was considered extensively by the Cabinet Committee which was of the view that it would not be feasible to restore this right to the employers as it would cause workers to express serious resentment. Any backlash in this regard was considered by the Committee to be counter-productive and damaging.

The Cabinet Committee, however, observed that the employer had to undergo a lengthy procedure in dealing with cases of misconduct, and technicalities of the procedure often led to prolonged litigation between the workers and the employers.

For discouraging undue litigation between the two parties, the Committee has recommended shortening of this procedure by amending Standing Order 15 to provide for 15 days' notice instead of one month's notice, as at present, besides dispensing with the enquiry procedure as laid down in clauses (4) and (5) of the Standing Order 15.

The employer, in view of the committee, may have the power to dispose of a worker's case of misconduct summarily, provided he will not order an action against the workman unless the requirements of justice have been fully met and exhausted.

Furthermore, in terms of the Section 25 A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the committee is of the view that this unnecessary restriction on the right of a workman resulted in considerable delay in the redressal of the worker's grievance, and has recommended, as such, that the workman should have the option either to make grievance petition to the employer or go directly to the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance.

The committee has further recommended that the time limit of three months for filing grievance under Section 25 (I) of IRO 1969 may be reduced to one month.