E-Paper
House panel backs 30-day salary for retrenched staff
The proposed law is one of the four labour reforms aimed at simplifying myriad and archaic labour laws and to make the sector more attractive for investors.
A worker should be entitled to compensation equal to 30-day wages and a reskilling fund if he or she is retrenched but employers should not be liable to pay in case of the closure of an industrial unit, a parliamentary panel has suggested for inclusion in the Industrial Relations Code.
The proposed law is one of the four labour reforms aimed at simplifying myriad and archaic labour laws and to make the sector more attractive for investors.
Biju Janata Dal lawmaker Bhartruhari Mahtab heads the panel, which has backed the government’s proposal to widen the scope of industrial strikes. The proposal seeks to consider mass casual leaves, which workers worldwide resort to as a form of protest, to be considered as a strike if a majority of the workers take leave on a particular day.
“The Committee finds that the words ‘concerted casual leave on a given day be fifty percent or more workers’ have been inserted in the definition of ‘strike’ on the rationale that it not only hampers production but also deteriorates the employer-employee relations. It is a fact that to opt for mass casual leave by the workers is akin to work stoppage and the results are similar to that of a strike,” the panel said in its report. “The definition [of strike] be revisited and suitably reworded so as to give a clear impression that the provision does not intend to infringe the rights of the workers as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
The panel has circulated its draft report online among its members and sent it to Lok Sabha Speaker’s office via email. It has rejected the demand of the trade unions to insulate general strikes from the mass casual leaves.
The panel has supported the plan for a reskilling fund which will be used to train retrenched workers for other disciplines. But it has said that the money for reskilling should not be given directly to workers as it “may defeat the very purpose”.
The panel has suggested that instead of the compensation equivalent to 15-day wages, it should be that of a month.
“The Committee, however, desires that, as also concurred by the Ministry, the fifteen days wage should be made applicable only in case of retrenchment, as its applicability to closure too would be an unwarranted additional burden on the employer and unfair to him. The Committee further desire that the stipulation of fifteen days wage for retrenchment be enhanced to at least thirty days for the benefit of workers/employees.”
