Tag Archives: Social Security Code

Innocent MPs Vs. Wily Bureaucrats – Episode 2

To
1. Hon’ble Speaker,
House of the People (Lok Sabha),
17, Parliament House,
New Delhi 110011

2. Mr. Bhartruhan Mahtab,
Hon’ble M.P. & Chairman,
Standing Committee of Parliament on Labour,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

(Through Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Deputy Secretary, Parliament of India,
House of the People. Email: comm.labour-lss@sansad.nic.in)

Sub: Appointment of Consultants and Specialists in ESI Corporation – – insertion of Second Proviso to Clause 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 – legislative process – bureaucrats continue to cheat the Parliament – representation – submitted.

Ref: 1. Bill No. 66-C of 2009 placed before the Lower House of the Parliament as The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2009 on 30.07.2009.
2. Report dated 09.12.2009 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour.
3. Record (Minutes) of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha on 03.05.2010.
4. Bill No. 66-C of 2009 as passed by the House of the People on 03.05.2010 titled The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2010.
5. CAG Report No. 40 of 2015 on Special Audit of Medical Education Projects in the ESI Corporation.
6. Draft Code on Social Security circulated in the MOL&E Circular No. Z-13025/13/2015-LRC dated 17.09.2019.
7. The Code on Social Security, 2019, placed as Bill No. 375 of 2019 before the House of the People (Lok Sabha).

Sir,

1. I submit this representation to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour (hereinafter referred to as the PSCL) with a request to kindly examine in depth the Second Proviso to Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill on The Code on Social Security, 2019 (Bill No. 375 of 2019 of the Lok Sabha) which has been worded in a nebulous and ambiguous manner.

2. This Clause is shown to have been included for the purpose of appointing Specialists and Consultants in the ESIC Hospitals for better delivery of Super Speciality Services. But this clause which is the exact reproduction of the Second Proviso to the Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948 did not serve that purpose. In fact the Second Proviso to the Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948, was inserted in the ESI Act, ten years ago, with ulterior motive, through an amendment vide Bill No. 66-C of 2009 of the Lok Sabha, and it had been the cause of various scandals unearthed later by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and some of them recorded in Para 2.3, Para 2.4 and Para 2.5 of his Report No. 40 of 2015 (Page 8 to 12 – Special Audit of Medical Education Projects).

3. I submit that such scandals became possible because of (a) the insertion of that provision as Second Proviso to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948, instead of its appropriate place as the Second Proviso to Sec. 17 (3) of the said Act and (b) the absence of insertion of definition to the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’ in the ESI Act along with the aforesaid amendment.

4. I therefore submit that the present Cl. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019, as it is at present, would definitely become the cause of further abuse as had happened in the past decade in the ESI Corporation, unless the PSCL inquires the authorities of the facts behind it and causes modification of it. What is required to be done is to insert this Clause in its appropriate place below the Cl. 24 (8) of the Bil No. 375 of 2019 and to incorporate, in the Bill itself, the definitions for the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’. I, therefore, request that the Committee may kindly bestow more attention for evaluating this provision, in the light of facts submitted in this representation and the Appendices.

5. The Second Proviso to the Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 which is, now, under the scrutiny of the PSCL at present reads as under:

“Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis.”

6. The second proviso to the Clause 5 of the Bill No. 66-C of 2009, introduced ten years ago to make amendment to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act,1948, which was scrutinized by the then PSCL, read as under:

“Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis.”

7. The PSCL had examined this provision in depth then and did not approve it the way it approved many of the other genuine provisions in the Bill No. 66-C of 2009. Yet the procedure had been manipulated, the observations of the PSCL overlooked and the defective Clause 5 of the Bill became law on 03.05.2010 enabling the persons in power to indulge in various scandals.

8. I submit that this Clause, which had been inserted in through the Bill No. 66-C of 2009, was not an innocuous provision. It was inserted in a pre-meditated manner with a view to indulge in various scandals. Instead of placing it as the second proviso to Sec. 17 (3) of the ESI Act, the bureaucrats connived to insert it as the second proviso to Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act. (Please see Appendix B). Their apparent intention was (i) to appoint anyone as Specialist or Consultant for any non-medical purpose, (ii) to ignore the proper method of recruitment, (iii) to pay such an appointee extraordinary remuneration without any guideline being anywhere and (iv) to keep those appointees beyond the pale of all kinds of disciplinary provisions. I request that this provision need not again be made a part of law through the proposed Code on Social Security, 2019 vide the Bill No. 375 of 2019 which is now under the effective consideration of the PSCL.

Appendix B

9. It is essential for the PSCL to know the fact that when the Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, suspected the bona fides of the provision in the Bill No. 66-C of 2019 and came forward with valid suggestion during the meeting of the Committee of Secretaries held on 06.01.2009 to prevent the abuse of this provision, the Director General, ESI Corporation chipped in and clarified that it was only an enabling provision and that the rules would be framed later. His defence was endorsed by the Cabinet Secretary who was present in the meeting and observed that the issue might be examined “at the time of framing of rules.” But it is a pity that the promises of the Director General of the ESI Corporation and the Cabinet Secretary were not kept. Consequently, no rules under the provisions of Subordinate Legislation have ever been framed regarding the appointment of Specialists and Consultants till date, although many had been appointed through questionable means in the organization leading to the objection by the CAG too.

10. I, therefore, request that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour may be pleased

a. to dispense with this provision altogether and direct the ESI Corporation to follow the procedure adopted in the AIIMS, JIPMER, etc., for appointment of Specialists and Consultants in medical fields, or

b. to advise the authorities concerned to formulate the provision properly to enable them to appoint only the Specialists and Consultants with medical qualifications to meet the requirement of the ESI Corporation in providing super speciality medical benefit to the ailing beneficiaries in the ESIC run medical institutions;

c. to advise the authorities to incorporate suitable definition for the terms ‘Specialists’ and ‘Consultants’ under Clause 2 of the Bill under consideration; and

d. to shift this impugned proviso from the present position as the Second Proviso to Clause 24 (7) (a) of the Bill on the Code on Social Security, 2019 ( Bill No. 375 of 2019) and to insert the same as the Second Proviso to Clause 24 (8) of the said Bill to prevent abuse of the provision once again by making extraordinary payments to the people who are appointed as Specialists and Consultants. (Please see Appendix C)

11. I submit herewith a Write-up containing the relevant details pertaining to the abuse of law-making-process in the year 2009 and 2010 to insert the Second Proviso under Sec. 17 (2) (a) of the ESI Act. I believe that the PSCL may find the precedent and the details thereof useful to arrive at a decision, as deemed fit, on the unwarranted Proviso which has been inserted as Clause No. 24 (7) (a) of the Bill,

Yours faithfully,

Encl: Appendices A, B & C.

Appendix C

Leave a comment

Filed under Labour Code 2020

Innocent MPs Vs. Wily bureaucrats !

Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala Vs. The State of Bombay and others on 25.08.1960 referred, in a different context,  to the possibility of legislature,  “controlled by a powerful executive”. That possibility is proved to have become a reality in India as demonstrated by the wily bureaucrats when it came to the amendment of Labour laws, especially the Bill No. 66-C of 2009 and the Bill No.375  of 2019.

The manner in which the Cl. 40 (9) had been inserted in the Bill on The Code on Social Security, 2019, (Bill No. 375 of 2019) pending in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) shows how wily the bureaucrats could be, again and again. Identical Clause was introduced in the Bill No. 66-C of 2009 to amend the ESI Act, 1948.

But the then Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour  (PSCL) rejected that provision categorically assigning strong reasons. Yet without being aware of the said observations of the PSCL, the provision was made to become law during a pademonium without discussion on 03.05.2010.

Now the Bill No. 375 of 2019 containing the same provision is before the present PSCL. Attempt is made to apprise the PSCL of the history of the case to save the social security structure from being corroded further.

Copy of the letter dated 14.05.2020 sent to the Hon’ble Speaker, House of the People is reproduced hereunder:

======================================================

To

1 Hon’ble Speaker,
House of the People (Lok Sabha),
17, Parliament House,
New Delhi 110011
2 Mr. Bhartruhan Mahtab,
Hon’ble M.P. & Chairman,
Standing Committee of Parliament on Labour,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110011.

(Through Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Deputy Secretary, Parliament of India,House of the People. Email: comm.labour-lss@sansad.nic.in)

Sub: Third party participation in running the ESIC hospitals and medical institutions – insertion of Sec. 59 (3) of the ESI Act, 1948 in the year 2010 – Clause 40 (9 ) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 – bureaucracy deceiving the Parliament – Representation – submitted.
Ref: 1.  Bill No. 66-C of 2009 placed before the Lower House of the Parliament as The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2009 on 30.07.2009.
2.  Report dated 09.12.2009 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour.
3.  Record (Minutes) of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha on 03.05.2010.
4.  Bill No. 66-C of 2009 as passed by the House of the People on 03.05.2010 titled The ESI (Amendment) Bill, 2010.
5.  Hqrs. Letter No. U-11/14/1/20-15-Med.I (ICU) dated 20.04.2018 addressed to M/s Sheel Nursing Home Pvt Ltd, Uttar Pradesh.
6.  Draft Code on Social Security circulated in the MOL&E Circular No. Z-13025/13/2015-LRC dated 17.09.2019.
7.  The Code on Social Security, 2019, placed as Bill No. 375 of 2019 before the House of the People (Lok Sabha).

Sir,

I submit that Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala Vs. The State of Bombay and others on 25.08.1960 referred, in a different context,  to the possibility of legislature,  “controlled by a powerful executive”. That possibility is proved to have become a reality in India as demonstrated by the bureaucrats, again and again, when it came to the amendment of Labour Laws, especially the Bill No. 66-C of 2009 and the Bill No.375  of 2019, as explained below. In the context, I consider it necessary to invite your kind attention to Clause 40 (9) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 which is under the consideration and scrutiny of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour at present. The said Clause reads as under:

“The Corporation may also enter into agreement with any local authority, local body or private body for commissioning and running Employees’ State Insurance hospitals through third party participation for providing medical treatment and attendance to insured persons and (where such medical benefit has been extended to their families), to their families.”

2. Identical is the provision under Sec. 59 (3) of the ESI Act, which was inserted through the amendment of the year 2010, vide Bill No. 66-C of 2009:

Sec 59 2 Bill Text

3. I submit that this provision, i.e., the Sec. 59 (3) of the ESI Act which is in force as on date and the proposed Cl. 40 (9) of the Bill No. 375 of 2019, enable Third Party participation in commissioning and running the ESI hospitals and providing medical treatment and attendance to insurance persons and their families.

4. When the above  provision was proposed  to be inserted in the ESI Act in 2009, as Sec. 59 (3), vide Clause No. 14 of the Bill No. 66-C of 2019 introduced in the Lok Sabha, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour had examined the issue rejected the proposal outright as could be from Para 113 of its Report presented to  the Lok Sabha on 09.12.2009. The Committee did not permit making such an enabling provision in the Bill for commissioning and running these hospitals through third party participation Para 113 said,

“113. The Committee note the proposal of the Government for making a provision for commissioning and running of ESI hospitals through third party participation. The Committee find that ESIC has the required capacity and wherewithal to run hospitals on their own since Government have taken a decision that all new hospitals would be run by ESIC directly. The Committee, do not find any justification in, and therefore outright reject, the contention of the Government that ‘some of the hospitals constructed on the request, and not taken over by the concerned State Governments may be commissioned through third party participation’. The Committee take note of the reply of the Government that there were only three hospitals which had not been taken over by the State Government and out of these three, one, at Chinchwad, had already been commissioned by the ESIC directly and already handed over to the State Government. Another hospital at Bibvewadi has also been commissioned by the State Government. Therefore, the Committee feel that there is no justification on the part of the Government for making such an enabling provision in the Bill for commissioning and running these hospitals through third party participation”.

Para 113 page 70 PSC report

Page 71 of the PSC report

5. Yet, those observations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour had not been taken to the notice of the Members of the Lok Sabha on 03.05.2010 in an appropriate manner that would make them pay attention to the differing views of the Standing Committee. Consequently, the original Clause 14 in the Bill No. 66 of 2009 was made to become law in the form of Sec.59 (3) of the ESI Act. That provision was, thus, the outcome of an unlawful and unjust and undemocratic law-making-process.

6. It becomes clear, from the Minutes of the Parliamentary Proceedings, that the authorities did not want to care for the well-considered  observations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour and had, therefore, omitted any reference to the abovementioned observation of the Committee in Para 113 of its report. That was why even the already prepared speech of the Hon’ble Minister did not contain any reference, at all, to the Para 113 of the Report containing the objection of the Parliamentary Standing Committee to Clause 14 which was to become Sec. 59 (3) in the Act, later.

7. Besides, the Bill got passed by the Lok Sabha within a time span of nine minutes between 1420 hours and 1429 hours on that day, the 3rd May 2010, when the issue pertaining to Sibu Soren was creating a pandemonium in the House without allowing any meaningful discussion. Significantly, the Hon’ble Minister did not, actually, deliver, in the house, that portion of the speech which is available in Pages 60, 61 & 62 of the Minutes dated 03.05.2010 but had just laid it on the table on the advice of the Hon’ble Deputy Speaker, as could be seen from the live telecast that day.

8. The fact, in essence, is that the Parliament of India had not consciously approved the amendment for and before inserting the aforesaid Sec. 59 (3) in the ESI Act, 1948. It did not examine the observations of the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour dated 09.12.2009. The Legislature had been tricked on 03.05.2010 by the Executive, whose intention was only to observe the formality of getting the Bill declared by the Speaker as passed on the floor of the Lok Sabha. The Executive had not been sincere and honest in giving right and complete information to the Legislature on this issue before asking for its approval.

9. The Executive had, with mala fide intention, placed the Clause 14 of the original Bill No. 66 of 2009, in its original form itself before the Parliament, even after the Parliamentary Standing Committee had objected to the said draft proposal in Para 113 of its Report. It is not the ‘end’ result but the ‘means’ adopted by the Executive to achieve that ‘end’ which makes the said Sec. 59 (3) vulnerable and amenable to judicial scrutiny.

10. While Parliament is not bound by the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, it cannot just ignore the findings of the latter. Parliament has to apply its mind to the observations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and record that it was differing from the stand of the said Committee. But in this case the Lok Sabha had simply been oblivious of the vital observations of the Standing Committee in Para 1134 of its report. The Executive did not make any efforts to draw the particular attention of the Parliamentarians to the stand of the Standing Committee to the then proposed Sec. 59 (3) of the ESI Act.

11. What is shocking all the more is that the same provision appeared as follows as Cl. 43 (9) in the draft circulated on 17.09.2019 and withdrawn in the first week of October 2019, at the behest of the PMO to rejig the draft.  The present Cl. 40(9) in the Bill on the Code on Social Security, 2019, (Bill No. 375 of 2019) is the identical replica of the same provision, as quoted in Para 1 supra. This Bill has also been referred now to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour without informing that Committee that the same issue had been examined by the earlier Parliamentary Standing Committee and had been rejected by it. The Executive has thus been consistently playing tricks with the Parliamentarians and cheat them as a matter of routine by suppressing facts from the knowledge of the Parliamentarians.

12. I, therefore, request that the members of the present Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour may be informed,specifically, of the contents of Para 113 of the of the Report presented to the Lok Sabha on 09.12.2009 by the earlier Committee, so that the present Committee concerned could take an informed decision.

13. It would also be appropriate for the present Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour to delve a little deeper into the manner in which various instances had taken place during the last decade through that Sec. 59 (3) of the ESI Act, 1948, especially those involving the agency called M/s Sheel Nursing Home Pvt Ltd referred to in the Hqrs. letter dated 20.04.2018, before and for taking decision on the Clause No. 40 (9) of the Bill on Social Security Code, 2019, which is now under the consideration of the said Committee.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Leave a comment

Filed under Labour Code 2020

Social Security Code, 2019: Please put it for stakeholders’ discussion first!

22.04.2020

To

Mr. Bhartruhari Mahtab,

Hon’ble M.P &  Chairman,

Standing Committee of Parliament on Labour,

South Block,

New Delhi – 110011.

 

(Through Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Deputy Secretary, Parliament of India, House of the People,

email: comm.labour-lss@sansad.nic.in)

 

Sub: Social Security Code, 2019– does not provide acceptable standards of quality of life – Ordinance route – improper – representation – submitted.

 

Ref: News item in the NDTV on 13.04.2020.

 

Sir,

1. I am compelled to submit this representation because of the news item that appeared In the NDTV under the caption “Amid COVID-19 Effects, Executive Orders To Fast-Track Labour Codes” on 13.04.2020 which says that The coronavirus and the subsequent lockdown has pushed the government to take the ordinance route to formulate three of the four labour codes it is planning. I submit that any such action in a hurry to rush through the Labour Code on Social Security is fraught with dangerous consequences to the entire Indian society, for all the time to come. The facts of the case are that the last draft Bill was put in public domain for discussion on 17.09.2019 in File No. Z-13025/13/2015-LRC, giving stakeholders time to respond up to 25.10.2019 with “suggestions”, “comments” and “inputs”. But the draft was withdrawn at the behest of the PMO within three weeks, as reported by the Economic Times on 04.10.2019. To the shock of everyone, all of a sudden, a formal Code on Social Security got introduced in the Parliament on 06.12.2019 as Bill No. 375 of 2019 and the Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour on 23.12.2019. The Standing Committee is now seized of the issue. I submit that this cannot be the way of deciding the livelihood of a large section of humanity, the working population of India and the stakeholders in providing social security to them.

2. There had been so many things fishy in this matter of preparation of code on social security, right from the beginning. It is common knowledge that neither the Finance Ministry nor the Labour Ministry could find out, for the past five long years, who played the mischief in smuggling in the mischievous phrase against the ESIC and the EPFO using the word, “hostages” in the Budget Speech of Mr. Arun Jaitely on 28.02.2015, without any documentary evidence and authorised source. That exactly was the point of origin of great conspiracy by certain vested interests who were all out to demolish the well-established social security structure of the entire nation. They had had illicit access to the power centres, it became evident from the reply of the Ministry of Finance in O.M. No. 2/98670/2015-RTI dated 13.05.2015. (For more, https://flourishingesic.info/2015/06/10/hostages-accusation-against-esic-epfo-without-documents/ ).

3. The benefits provided by the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 are the best which, every succeeding government should try to better. This Act assures that the dependants of an employee who met with a fatal employment injury would get about 80 to 90% of the wages drawn by the deceased employee as Dependants Benefit. 3/5 of it is for the spouse and the remaining 2/5 is for the children up to 25 years of age. If the child is infirm at the time of the death of the employee concerned, that child gets its share throughout its lifetime.

4. Similarly, the employee gets 80% to 90% of his wages as compensation in the event Temporary Disablement caused due to Employment Injury. One who suffers from ordinary sickness is entitled to get 60% to 70% of the wages as compensation for 91 days within two consecutive benefit periods constituting one year. In these cases, the cash benefits are in addition to the free medical aid, which is needed for the sickness or disease concerned, for which a large chain of dispensaries and hospitals have been established. The benefit called Extended Sickness Benefit that provides 80% of wages to the employees for about two years with free medical aid to them and their family members for three years is unmatched and can never be provided by any private player. The benefits payable to the insured persons in the event of their interim unemployment are immense and its importance assumes large dimension in the context the current nation-wide lockdown due to Covid virus. In order to ensure brevity, I am not dealing here with all the benefits provided under the ESI Scheme. But there is no assurance anywhere in the Social Security Code, 2019 that the benefits available as per the present statute would be continued. Leaving everything to subordinate legislation, the Code has left the entire workforce in the wilderness. When an existing law is proposed to be changed, people do have the right to know whether the benefits that would be available would be the same or more or less. That issue has not been answered to.

5. It is appropriate to recall the fact that Paul Krugman, the celebrated Nobel Prize Winner of 2011 has examined the issue in depth and warned the American legislators not to fall victim to the propagandists of privatisation of social security. It is also worth noting that a leader who wanted to privatise Social Security was looked at as an anti-people leader by the public. The presidential candidates of the USA in the year 2004 wanted to make use of that impression to villainise each other. Mr. John Kerry wanted to scare away the voters from voting again for President George. W. Bush saying that the latter was planning a surprise second term attempt to privatise social security and forecast a “disaster for America’s middle class”.  “I’ll tell you what. I will never privatise social security”, Mr. Kerry said. The spokesman of Mr. George W. Bush, the Republican Party Chairman, Ed Gillespie, called the charge “just flat inaccurate”. None of the parties wanted privatisation of social security there. These incidents would show the importance of keeping the social security scheme in public sector, to provide social security benefits as a sovereign duty, in accordance with Art. 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Art. 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India.

6. A Social Security Scheme provides a security-net assuring every employee that his economic condition and health condition would not be allowed to fall below that net. It is a safety net that gives peace of mind to the employee and ensures peace and harmony in the entire society, referred to at length in the Preamble of the Charter of the International Labour Organisation, established in 1919 AD.

7. The social security system established in India in the year 1948 was evolved out of the famous report of Sir William Beveridge which contributed already to the strength of the National Health Scheme in the UK. The ESI Scheme in India had been modelled on and drawn from the same ‘Beveridge Report’. Any independent analyst who examines the social security provisions of every nation for comparison and contrast would declare, unequivocally, that the ESI Act, 1948 of India is a symbol of civilisation. Every social security enactment is intended to take every society towards a civilised status. In the matter of social security, the Scandinavian countries provide examples to be emulated. Private players cannot provide real social security and they cannot have a have role in it. The Hindu, had editorially conceded on 01.01.2005, that “The package (of benefits provided by the ESIC) can rarely be matched by private employers on their own because of the heavy costs involved – not to mention the disinclination among employers, with honourable exceptions, to operate health care systems for their workforce”.

8. But instead of taking the nation forward the three draft Labour Codes on Social Security prepared in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 put the nation on the path of retardation, and consequently those efforts ended up in failure. Because the intention of those interests who drafted those Codes was not for providing real social security but to deny social security and demolish even the existing structure, while maintaining a facade that they were taking action for the welfare of all the people. These three drafts had been withdrawn from public discussion because of the incomplete, incongruous and inadequate provisions therein. It was a fact that the PMO itself had disagreed with the draft circulated on 17.09.2019 in File No. Z-13025/13/2015-LRC and ordered to withdraw that last draft. All those three drafts had, literally, been running into hundreds of pages. It is, therefore, not proper to make use of the pandemonium created by the Covid pandemic and enforce such a voluminous Labour Code on Social Security through an Ordinance.

9. The ESI Act provides a goal post, a decent and reasonable standard, for social security in the Indian context. It provides an ideal security net and it has been successful all along. What is required now is to make use of Sec. 1 (5) of the Act that enables the ESI Scheme to be extended to the establishments in all the four sectors, ( industrial, commercial, agricultural and otherwise) and provide social security of the same standard to all the employees in all those sectors. It is not necessary to prepare the code as has been done thrice by the vested interests who wanted to really deny even the existing security cover. These draft codes reduced the existing benefits instead of providing more benefits to more workers.

10. I submit that the need of the hour is to run the organisation corruption-free and not to run down the organisation and its concept. But that is not being done. Even the CAG has not been helpful to monitor the functioning right. He failed to detect the huge fraud committed in the name of construction of medical colleges and prepared a slip-shod report bearing No. 40 of 2015. When challenged in the W.P. 33775 of 2016 and W.P. 35284 of 2016 in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India could not file any counter-affidavit, for the past four long years, while the Cabinet Secretary himself had filed his counter-affidavit within a year. I submit that it is worth probing into the puzzling silence of the CAG who is, now, afraid of judicial review of his inactions and lapses on this serious issue. This CAG has, through his report No. 40 of 2015, cheated the President, the Parliament and the public in this matter and is, deliberately, trying to avoid accountability. I submit that it is there where the government should concentrate.

11. Mr. Ratan Tata has, in the context of the living conditions of the poor in Dharavi of Mumbai, said that we should think over about the “acceptable standards of quality of life”. He has added, “… we’re dealing with populations that need to be a part of new India. We are creating a community which we are ashamed of. We should be driven by the desire of creating a world culture” (Times of India 21.04.2020).

 

12. But the intention of the forces which caused the preparation of the three drafts on Labour Code on Social Security in2017, 2018 and 2019, was to radically reduce the acceptable standards of quality of life when the workers meet with various contingencies in life. These three drafts reduced even the existing time-tested benefits provided under the ESI Act. These drafts made the government to disown its constitutional responsibility and gave freehand to private players to play havoc with the lives of the working population. No explanation had ever been given by the brains behind those drafts to justify their attempt. Silence cannot be the answer to valid questions which the persons who drafted those drafts found uncomfortable. Now, the news item mentioned in the reference cited has caused genuine alarm and apprehension in the minds of the people about the fate of social security in the nation.

13. I submit that the very introduction of ‘the Code on Social Security, 2019’ in the Parliament as Bill No. 375 of 2019 on 06.12.2019 is premature, as the draft Bill placed in public domain on 17.09.2019 had been withdrawn at the instance of the PMO, as reported in the Economic Times on 04.10.2019. I, therefore, fervently pray that the mode of ordinance may not be resorted to for enforcing any Labour Code on Social Security, when the need of the hour, after the withdrawal of the third draft circulated on 17.09.2019, is to do the preliminary work of preparing a fresh draft Labour Code on Social Security and putting it in public domain for public discussion.

14. As there has been no real public discussion on the contents of the Bill placed before the Parliament on 06.12.2019, I request that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour may be pleased to recommend withdrawal of the Bill No. 375 of 2019 from the Parliament for placing it in the public domain first inviting ‘suggestions”, “comments”, and “inputs”, from the stakeholders, as called for in the letter dated 17.09.2019 of the Ministry of Labour.

With profound regards,

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Labour Code 2020