The Hans India: National: Tuesday, September 12, 2017.
One RTI
applicant, Vandana, asked for information on the number of construction
workers, domestic workers and women workers in the country, who have received
maternity benefits in the last five years; what percentage of female workers
are engaged in the unorganised sector; how are the proposed amendments of the
maternity benefits act likely to cover women working in the unorganised sector;
status of implementation of the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act, 2008
etc. Since no information was received, the appellant approached this
Commission.
Vandana, the
Founding Secretary of Public Health Resource Network, is currently the National
Convener. The appellant is a social activist and social worker for over two
decades and has a vast experience in health and development. She has been
closely associated with many national health movements like People’s Health
Movement-India (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan), Mobile Crèches, Right to Food Campaign
etc., to name a few. She has served as a Member (Child Health, Welfare and
Development), National Commission for Protection of Child Rights from 2012 to
2013. She stated that the partial response was received after the second appeal
was filed. She also submitted that 97% of the working women are in informal
sector. The appellant’s second appeal gives an insight about arrangements for
social welfare to women working in the unorganised sector.
Question:
“How many construction workers in the country have received maternity benefits
in the last five years”; Response: “Giving maternity benefits is also included
in the scheme of State Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Boards
but that data is not centrally maintained.”
Question:
“How many domestic workers in the country have received maternity benefits in
the last five years”; Response “it is stated that no data is maintained at the
Central level regarding domestic workers who have received maternity benefits
in the last five years.”
The other
questions are: “How many women workers in the country working in any
unorganised sector have received maternity benefits in the last five years”;
“Of the entire female workforce, what percentage, according to the Ministry, is
engaged in the unorganised sector”; “How are the proposed amendments of the maternity
benefits act likely to cover women working in the unorganised sector”; “What is
the status of implementation of the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act,
2008”; “What funds have been allocated for the implementation of this Act and
under what heads”; “What is the status of the utilisation of these funds”;
“What is the accountability of the Central Ministry of Labour towards ensuring
maternity benefits for women working in the unorganised sector”; and, “What
actions is the Central Labour Ministry considering in this regard.” Response:
Nil.
This
information should have been given under Section 4(1)(b) (xi), (xii) and
4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, which mandates disclosure of “the manner of execution
of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of the
beneficiaries of such programmes” and
calls for publishing “all relevant facts while formulating important policies
or announcing the decisions which affect public.”
Thousands of
women leave their domicile and their nearest and dearest for a better life and
better career opportunities but they really get nothing. Paradoxically, they
are given away to an unusual form of life which is far from reality and
strained to carry on for survival with what has been offered to them. To put it
in simple words, those guiltless people who have not even attained the age of
majority are sold to work at factories, industries as forced/bonded labourers;
women who are capable and are aspiring to become big in life are auctioned off
as domestic workers.
At present,
domestic workers often are given very low wages, made to work for excessively
long hours, have no guaranteed weekly day off rest and at times are vulnerable
to physical, mental and sexual abuse or restrictions on freedom of movement.
Exploitation of domestic workers can partly be attributed to gaps in national
labour and employment legislation, and often reflects discrimination along the
lines of sex, race and caste.
The growing
impact of domestic work in paid employment in India makes it more crucial to
ensure that such work is given dignity and occurs under decent conditions with
adequate pay. Appointment is done off the record and usually by word of mouth
and workers rarely get benefits like insurance, paid leave, compensatory leave,
gratuity, provident fund or pensions. Official figures in India suggest there
are more than four million domestic workers in the country, but the real
figures are almost certainly much higher. It is unfortunate to note that as
long as overall productive employment generation remains slothful, the ongoing
pressures will be on both male and female workers forcing to accept working
conditions that are degrading.
There have
been many attempts to regulate this sector since independence. Most of these
have failed due to governmental resistance – active or through neglect. The
Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill 1959; All India Domestic Servants
Bill 1959; Domestic Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill 1972 and 1977 and The
House Workers (Conditions of Service) Bill 1989 are some of the major
legislations during the period. However, the government ignored the
recommendations of the Committee on the Status of Women in India 1974 and the
recommendation of the National Commission on Self Employed Women and Women in
the informal Sector 1988.
In recent
years, many NGOs and workers’ organizations have put pressure on the government
to protect the rights of domestic workers. There is no national law for
domestic workers and domestic workers have been excluded from various laws that
provide social security benefits for workers in general. Domestic workers do
not even enjoy the right to form unions. In India, domestic workers are not
covered by most labour legislations because of limitation in the definition of
either the ‘workman’, ‘employer’ or ‘establishment’.
The nature of
their work, the specificity of employee-employer relationship, the workplace
being the private household, excludes their exposure from the existing labour
laws including the Minimum Wages Act 1948, Maternity Benefit Act 1961, Workmen’s
Compensation Act 1926, Inter State Migrant Workers Act 1976, Payment of Wages
Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Employee’s State Insurance Act,
Employees Provident Fund Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 etc.
Fixed minimum
wages, equal pay equal work, maternity leave, medical aid and other fundamental
essentials provided to any employee are still an optical illusion for the
domestic workers. In this background, few moves from the State governments in
India should be welcomed, such as the Minimum Wage Act for Domestic Workers,
which has been notified by the State governments of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and
Rajasthan, while a separate Act has come into force in Karnataka. Perceptibly,
implementation remains a problem, but this is aided by the attempts at
unionisation of such workers and related collective action, as have occurred in
Kerala, Mumbai and other places in India.
The
Commission found that the PIO has not forwarded the RTI application as per
Section 6(3) to the authorities concerned within time. Denying or delaying in
providing the information on the ground that it is not maintained will defeat
the very purpose of the RTI Act. Section 8(1) which states “Provided that the
information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.”
As per
Section 19(5) the burden lies on public authority/CPIO to justify the denial
saying they would deny the same information to Parliament also on the grounds
that it is not centrally maintained. They failed to discharge this burden
hence, the denial is illegal. This public authority and the Central Ministry
for Labour and Employment are duty bound to take care of workers’ welfare,
besides for framing appropriate policy and its implementation.
Most
unfortunate that the public authority says it is not in possession of that
information. The public authority has failed on two counts one suo moto
disclosure responsibility under Section 4 and discharging the burden under
Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. The record shows that there was around 100 days
delay in responding to the appellant. The Commission found valid reasons for
admitting complaint and issued show cause notices and also notice for
compensation.
.JPG)
.JPG)
