Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Pakistan (Ratification: 1951)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) dated 8 March 2010 regarding the difficulties in registering trade unions for the industries established in the City of Sialkot, as well as the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 concerning acts of violence against protesters, night‑time raids, arrests and harassment against trade union leaders and members, as well as other violations of the Convention. The Committee notes in particular the comments of the ITUC concerning the requirement that any gathering of more than four people be subject to police authorization and its impact on trade union activities, as well as the denial of the right to strike to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) and the possibility to impose penalties of imprisonment against illegal strikes, go-slows and picketing activities. The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of workers’ organizations, and that workers have the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on all these matters in its next report.

The Committee also notes the comments made by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) dated 30 July 2010 concerning the legal vacuum with regard to the regulation of industrial relations as the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) of 2008 expired on 30 April 2010, in particular as concerns national industry-wide trade unions. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that it has enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions are devolved to the provinces. The Government adds that it will ensure that provincial legislations will be in accordance with the Convention. The Committee further notes that on 18 June 2010, the High Court of Sindh (Karachi), referring to the 18th Constitutional Amendment, confirmed that the IRA 2008 stood repealed and concluded that the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969 was now once again in force. The Committee recalls in this respect that it had previously commented on a number of significant restrictions on the right to organize under the IRO 1969 and in particular: (i) the exclusion from the IRO of public servants of grade 16 and above, of forestry, railway and hospital workers, of agricultural workers like self-employed farmers, sharecroppers and smallholders, as well as of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceeded 800 rupees per month (far below the national minimum wage); and (ii) restrictions on the rights to strike. The Committee notes that while some provincial governments have moved to pass their own legislation based on the expired IRA 2008, it expresses its concern over the exercise of their rights by national industry-wide trade unions, the activities of which may be jeopardized in the absence of a national legislation dealing with industrial relations and trade union rights.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that new legislation will be adopted in the country in the very near future with the full consultation of the social partners concerned. The Committee further hopes that any adopted legislation will be in full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the developments with regard to the adoption of national and/or provincial legislations on trade unions and industrial relations and to provide a copy of these instruments once adopted. It reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and will be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. Noting the Government’s statement that the draft Rules are in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their adoption, as well as a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Banking sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee noted the Government’s statement that a bill to repeal section 27‑B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 was submitted to the Senate. The Committee notes that the Government provides, with its report, a copy of the amendment submitted to the Senate and indicates that, as underlined in its Labour Policy 2010, it is committed to repeal this section. The Committee notes in this respect the conclusions of Case No. 2096 of the Committee on Freedom of Association in which it has been requesting amendment of this Ordinance for many years. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Amendment of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

Furthermore, recalling that Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing illegal strikes or slowdowns with up to seven years’ imprisonment, would be contrary to the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether this Ordinance is still in force.