CMNT_TITLE

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - India (RATIFICATION: 1954)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points:

1. The Committee notes that the IPEC Programme and Budget document for 1994-95 refers to the programme aimed at eliminating progressively child labour in the hazardous carpet weaving industry in Uttar Pradesh (which has a large number of bonded working children) through an integrated effort of stepping up the enforcement of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and rehabilitating the children so withdrawn from work.

The Committee also notes that the government of Tamil Nadu has prepared a report laying down an approach for the complete elimination of child labour in the match and the fireworks industries.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress in enforcing the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, on penalties applied as well as on the steps taken for rehabilitation.

The Committee hopes that the government will provide a copy of the report by the government of Tamil Nadu.

2. The Committee also hopes that the Government will provide copies of the decisions by the High Court in writ petition No. 483 of 1987 and writ petition civil No. 12125 of 1984 when rendered.

3. In previous comments the Committee noted that during the discussions in the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery attention was drawn to the situation of children exploited as child prostitutes. It was alleged that these children were auctioned and sold like cattle, that there existed transit centres located near Agra, Saharanpur, Banaras, Calcutta, etc., certain regions being more "specialized" in girl child prostitution, others in homosexual trade.

The Committee expresses again the firm hope that the Government will provide informaton on these allegations and on any measures taken or contemplated to eradicate this form of forced labour and exploitation of children.

4. The Committee in its previous comments pointed out that the 1985 amendment to the Nagaland (Requisition of Porters) Act, 1965, did not modify the definition of "emergency" in section 2(a) of the Act which includes situations under which "movement of commodities, stores and equipment deemed essential to the life of the community or to the maintenance of the law and order or prevention of any threat to peace, to a place not connected by "'road' or rail is impeded for want of porters", or "movement of the police force, Assam Rifles or units of the regular armed forces to a place not connected by 'road' or rail to deal with a breach of the peace, or any threat to law or order, is impeded for want of porters to carry any essential items of equipment and baggage". The Committee requested the Government to take further action to limit resort to the requisition of porters to cases where it is necessary to deal with a calamity or threatened calamity endangering the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population. The Committee notes the Government's statement that since the recent Assembly elections in Nagaland, the matter had been taken up once again, on a priority basis, at the highest level with the Chief Minister of the government of Nagaland.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this matter.

5. In its previous comments the Committee noted the text of the Navy Act and extracts from the Army Act, the Army Rules, the Air Force Act and the Air Force Rules dealing with the discharge of persons governed by these instruments. The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the practical application of the relevant provisions concerning termination of service on the personnel's own initiative, including statistical data of cases where applications for discharge were not accepted, as well as on any link made between the length of service and the period of free education or training received during or prior to the service in the armed forces.

The Committee notes the Government's information regarding the number of Naval personnel who left the service on their own initiative as well as cases where application for resignation was refused. The Committee would appreciate information on the reasons for such refusals.

The Committee also notes the government's renewed statement that regulations governing termination of service on own initiative are confidential. The Committee would however hope that the Government will be able to provide a copy of such regulations, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain the situation in relation to the freedom of this category of personnel in the service of the State to leave the service on their own initiative after a reasonable time, either at specified intervals or by giving notice.