Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Pakistan (Ratification: 1952)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

A Government representative welcomed the opportunity to engage the Committee in an open dialogue that would lead to a more effective promotion of labour rights in Pakistan. In keeping with Pakistan's commitment to respecting international labour standards, he noted that the Government had approved ratification of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). The instrument of ratification was being prepared for submission to the ILO; upon ratification, Pakistan would be the second country in South Asia, and among a handful in Asia, to have ratified all eight fundamental ILO Conventions. The speaker observed that the fragility of Pakistan's economy throughout the 1990s clearly had an adverse impact on employment and working conditions in the country. A significant increase in poverty and unemployment marked this difficult period. The economy had been stabilized, however, through several wide-ranging initiatives aimed at strengthening regulatory policy and boosting private sector growth. Measures adopted under the Medium-Term Development Framework (MDTF), for instance, had resulted in reduced unemployment as well as a reduction in poverty from 34.46 per cent in 2001 to 23.9 per cent in 2005. Additionally, via several initiatives aimed at enhancing skills training and generating employment, the Government intended to continue to pursue the objectives of development and poverty alleviation. The speaker noted that steps had been taken to reform the legislation in the light of the concerns expressed in the Committee of Experts' 2005 observation. As regards the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 (IRO), following tripartite consultations, a bill to amend the IRO was drafted and submitted to the Cabinet; a Committee was established to examine the amending legislation, and would in due course make recommendations for the Cabinet's consideration. Measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 and section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act were also presently under way.

The speaker underscored that the Constitution of Pakistan provided clear guarantees of the right to form or join associations to all Pakistani citizens, including rural workers. Furthermore, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and provincial governments had been advised to help streamline the work and activities of rural workers' organizations in keeping with the Government's obligations under Convention No. 98. Referring to the Committee of Experts' comments on the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIA), the speaker noted that the repeal of the Chief Executive's Order No. 6 was sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. When arrived at, the decision of the Court would be transmitted to the ILO. The speaker stated that Export Processing Zone Employment Relations Rules had been prepared in response to the concerns raised regarding the denial of labour rights in this sector. These draft Rules had been sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights for review, and would be provided to the Committee of Experts once this process was completed. Finally, the speaker noted that the ban on trade union activities in the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (KESC) had been lifted. A dispute regarding registration of the labour union in the KESC was considered by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which ordered that a referendum be held to prepare for the determination of a collective bargaining agent. The NIRC was making preparations for the referendum, following which labour unions would be fully restored in the KESC. The speaker concluded by stating that the above-noted developments demonstrated the Government's sincere commitment to fulfilling its obligations under Convention No. 98.

The Employer members stated that the Committee should take note of the announcement made by the Government concerning its decision to ratify Convention No. 138. The case under discussion demonstrated that ratification was one matter, but implementation was another. The application of Convention No. 98 had been discussed several times over the years, but a number of issues remained to be resolved. The Government informed the Committee of several decisions and measures taken or envisaged which would have to be examined by the Committee of Experts. The Employer members also noted that the existing problems were of a technical nature and that the Government appeared to be addressing them. They expected concrete progress in the very near future and urged the Government to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention in the very near future.

The Worker members expressed appreciation for the information supplied by the Government. They observed that this case had already been discussed in 2003, and prior to that in 1992. In this respect, they noted with regret that over the last 15 years the Government had failed to grasp the fundamental importance of Convention No. 98. The right to organize and bargain collectively was one that should be guaranteed to all workers; Pakistan ratified Convention No. 98 in 1952, yet continued to infringe upon the fundamental rights contained therein. As already noted in 1992, important sectors were excluded from the coverage of the Convention: the export processing zone sector; the railway, natural gas and petroleum industries; institutions established for payment of old-age pensions and charitable organizations; the national air and electricity companies; and finally the rural sector, if the workers in that sector enjoyed any rights at all. In addition, for the majority of public sector workers, no legal remedy was available when employers engaged in abusive practices. Employees in the banking sector faced fines or possible imprisonment for using facilities of the banking establishment in the exercise of their trade union activities during working hours. The interference of workers' and employers' organizations in the internal affairs of each other was still neither prohibited nor sanctioned by law. Finally, the principle of collective bargaining continued to be undermined by a number of practices that violated the Convention. Unions representing less than one-third of the personnel were not entitled to conclude collective agreements. Once a trade union was recognized, no other union could apply for registration for a period of three years. Finally, the NIRC was empowered to designate or change a trade union simply upon the recommendation of the federal Government. The Worker members regretted that the same abuses and serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention persisted. They also regretted the Government's procrastination and the fact that it never produced copies of the amendments, projects, rules or proposals that it announced.

The Worker member of Pakistan noted the information provided by the Government and supported the statements made by the Worker members. The efforts by the Ministry of Labour to ensure compliance with the Convention were welcome. The speaker elaborated on various issues raised by the Committee of Experts, such as the need to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the issue of ensuring trade union rights of rural workers and the need for speedy adoption of the Service Regulations for workers engaged in export processing zones. Further, the Government needed to ensure that, in the context of privatization and deregulation, workers' rights and interests were protected. Despite the fact that Pakistan was still struggling with the grave consequences of the recent earthquake, it was crucial to address these matters as soon as possible.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that his Government appreciated the statement made by the Government representative of Pakistan. It was important to consider the very difficult situation many countries endured in a globalized world in which it had become increasingly difficult to cope with enormous changes in the economy, employment relations and unemployment. It was also important to note the improvements made, and the good will shown by Pakistan and its Government should be commended for their efforts and should be assisted in overcoming remaining problems.

The Worker member of India recalled that both the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) and the ICFTU had expressed deep concern over the exclusion of several categories of workers from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), and therefore from the rights enshrined in Convention No. 98. The Committee of Experts, in repeated observations, had also commented upon the IRO's exclusion of several categories of employees. The Government had done little to address these exclusions over the years, and he asked the ILO to continue its efforts to urge the Government to extend the protection of Convention No. 98 to all workers.

The Government member of Cuba took note of the reform process on legal and administrative provisions to achieve conformity with the Convention. This demonstrated the commitment of the Government with workers' rights in Pakistan. He stressed that the report of the Committee of Experts and the current discussion should assist the Government to put into practice the changes required and recalled that Pakistan had recently suffered an earthquake that affected normal economic and social development. The speaker concluded by stating that the Committee's conclusions should show trust in the country and urged the Government to show proof of its willingness to put in place legislation in conformity with the Convention.

Another Government representative thanked the Committee's members for their comments and agreed that further efforts were necessary to ensure that the steps already taken led to the desired results. The labour policy of Pakistan fully reflected the country's obligations under international labour Conventions and was intended to ensure their implementation. She stated that the Government acknowledged that problems still existed, most of which emanated from the very difficult economic and social situation that her country faced in the 1990s. Her Government made a strong commitment to put in place a good industrial relations system and the steps taken in that direction were being reinforced. Bodies for tripartite consultation had been established and a special committee on labour matters had been set up. The Government was working towards resolving outstanding problems in the near future, while at the same time ensuring that measures taken would bring about lasting changes. In this regard, the Government was looking forward to further cooperation with workers' and employers' organizations, as well as the ILO.

The Employer members reiterated that some progress in resolving the outstanding issues had been made which should be taken into account in the Committee's conclusions. Nevertheless, the Government was requested to take the necessary measures to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention in the very near future and to provide full information to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken in this regard.

The Worker members noted with caution the information submitted by the Government. They requested the Committee of Experts to evaluate whether the current reforms had produced the expected results. They called upon the Government to continue taking the necessary measures so as to bring at last the national law and practice into conformity with the Convention, and reminded the Government that it could avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Committee noted the statements by the Government representatives and the debate that followed. The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government concerning its intention to ratify Convention No. 138.

The Committee recalled that the Committee of Experts had been making comments for several years on serious discrepancies between the Convention and national law and practice, particularly in relation to the denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention with regard to protection against anti-union discrimination, protection against interference and promotion of collective bargaining, to a wide range of workers including workers in the EPZ sector, in the agricultural and banking sectors, in large segments of the public sector and in other installations and industries. The Committee of Experts had also pointed out that penal sanctions could be imposed in the banking sector for certain trade union activities and that the law contained overly restrictive trade union recognition requirements.

The Committee took note of the Government's statement concerning the legislative reforms under way, in particular, the amendment of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, in order to bring the law and practice into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It also took note of further measures under consideration, in order to repeal penal sanctions for certain trade union activities in the banking sector and enable public sector workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations to seek redress against acts of anti-union discrimination. It further noted that Export Processing Zone Employment Relations Rules were being drafted in accordance with core ILO Conventions and that, as regarded the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation (KESC), the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) had ordered a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent and was currently making the necessary arrangements in this respect.

The Committee also noted however, that some of the steps that the Government had stated it was taking to bring the legislation and practice into greater conformity with the Convention had already been referred to by the Government, yet no final solution had been observed in respect of the Committee of Experts' comments on this Convention, which was ratified in 1952.

While expressing its concern at the long-standing nature of these discrepancies and underlining that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts represented serious violations of the Convention, the Committee observed that the Government was making important efforts to resolve the pending matters. It thus expected that the Committee of Experts would soon be in a position to note concrete and positive developments relating to the application of this Convention. It requested the Government to take all measures necessary for the legislative reforms under way to be carried out in an efficient and rapid manner, and for all pending issues to be addressed without delay, so as to bring national law and practice into full conformity with the Convention in the near future. The Committee requested the Government to send before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts a detailed report containing full information on all issues raised, as well as all draft texts concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee recalled that ILO technical assistance was available to the Government.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

A Government representative (Secretary Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis) stated that Pakistan, which was going through a massive economic and political restructuring process, had always attached great importance to the observations of the Committee of Experts. Pakistan had consistently attempted to identify necessary, sustainable and viable solutions in a national tripartite setting. No system could be perfect, but it was the will and the steps undertaken which should be the measure of the implementation of Pakistan's obligations. The Government representative drew attention to the adoption of a new labour policy in September 2002. The most important objective of the policy was to bring labour laws and administration in conformity with national objectives and international standards as enunciated in the ILO Conventions ratified by Pakistan, including Convention No. 98. The new policy attempted to strike a balance between the interests of labour and the industrialists and to reduce the role of the Government to that of a facilitator. Core pillars of the policy included the fostering of a relationship of trust between workers and employers, the evolvement of bilateral codes of conduct at the enterprise level, promoting healthy trade unionism and restructuring the labour judicial system.

The Government representative stated that the Committee of Experts had pointed out that section 2-A of the 1973 Service Tribunal Act excluded certain categories of workers from enjoying the rights enshrined in the Convention. In this respect, he informed the Committee that in light of the tripartite agreement on the new labour policy the issues related to this provision were being addressed, and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. This was not any easy process, but first steps had been taken. The Government was committed to finding a solution reflective of the demands of all stakeholders and the Committee's concerns.

With regard to the denial of collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sector (sections 38-A to 38-I of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance) and the exclusion of certain public servants of grade 16 and above from the purview of the Convention, the Government representative stated the following: (1) section 27-B did permit peaceful union activities and did not violate Article 3 of Convention No. 87; (2) different views were held in Pakistan on the issue, e.g. the State Bank of Pakistan considered that section 27-B was vital for checking disruptive activities of trade unions in the interest of financial reforms; (3) the new labour policy proposed a review of section 27-B with the aim of finding a mutually acceptable solution and a comprehensive follow-up on the policy, and this review had commenced, which included this aspect; and (4) the new labour policy had been scheduled for debate in both houses of Parliament.

Referring to the situation of workers in export processing zones, the Government representative stated that this question was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industries, which had exempted the zone from the application of labour laws. However, the Ministry of Labour had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Industries with a view to withdrawing the exemption. An extensive dialogue was under way triggered by the Committee of Expert's observation and it was hoped that the Government could report positively on the issue next year.

With regard to section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Government representative informed the Committee that a new Industrial Relations Ordinance had been promulgated on 26 October 2002. Under its provisions, workers who had been dismissed, discharged, removed from employment or transferred or injured during an industrial dispute were now entitled to interim relief from the National Industrial Relations Commission. In addition, the Government representative stated a review of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was under way. He concluded by renewing Pakistan's commitment to constructive dialogue and criticism. The country had taken tangible steps to further improve the situation at the domestic level and would continue to do so.

The Worker members welcomed the information provided to the Committee by the Government, on the application of Convention No. 98 in Pakistan. The last time this case had been examined was in 1992. The Worker members, however, regretted that, since then, the Government had not given enough priority to this Convention. The report of the Committee of Experts emphasized once again the discrepancies which had been pointed out 11 years ago. The new Ordinance of 2002 on labour relations still contained a number of restrictions to workers' right to organize. Public authorities continued to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions. Union leaders still risked serious penalties if accused of unfair labour practices. Workers were still poorly protected against discriminatory anti-union acts, and mechanisms for collective bargaining remained deficient. The rights established under Convention No. 98 were still not respected for major categories of workers, including the banking sector, level 16 or above civil servants, forestry, railroads, hospitals and the postal sector. The announced revision of the law governing the banking sector was impatiently anticipated. Employees of the banking sector and civil servants employed outside of the state administration should not be excluded from the guarantees provided under the Convention.

Regarding export processing zones, the Worker members regretted that the Government persisted in its failure to respect the rights of workers in these zones under Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. Regarding the protection of workers against dismissal linked to union activity, the Worker members deplored the fact that the new Ordinance of 2002 continued to restrict their right to appeal under such circumstances. The Committee on Freedom of Association itself had requested that the possibility of appealing be allowed under any circumstances and not only within the context of a labour conflict. Furthermore, the Worker members demanded the abrogation of prison sentences for the abuse of banking facilities for union purposes during working hours. These examples, among others, illustrated the gravity, persistence and institutional nature of the infringements to Convention No. 98, which the Worker members denounced.

The Employer members took note of the indications by the Government representative that a new labour policy had been adopted in 2002. They stated that this in itself did not yet satisfy the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in relation to the labour legislation. The Government apparently was taking steps to improve freedom of association in the public sector and the civil service, but the outcome of these efforts remained open. With regard to the situation in the export processing zones, the Employer members noted that no new information had been provided, as the measures taken so far did not go beyond draft laws. With regard to section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, under which the use of bank facilities or carrying out of union activities during office hours could be punished by fines and imprisonment, the Employer members stated that the sanction of imprisonment appeared too harsh. The Government had made many commitments and it was hoped that real progress could be noted very soon.

The Worker member of Pakistan associated himself with the statement made by the Worker members in relation to the international obligations of the Government of Pakistan. He recalled that the Government had held a National Tripartite Conference which recommended unanimously that national legislation be brought into conformity with ILO core standards as was also promised in the labour policy which was declared in September 2002 by the Government. The Industrial Relations Ordinance of 2002 which was introduced by the previous Government ran counter to these recommendations of the Tripartite Conference, the principles of the labour policy declared by the Government of Pakistan in September 2002, as well as the principles of Convention Nos. 87 and 98 ratified by Pakistan. The Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2229 and approved by the Governing Body in March 2003, recommended that the Government amend its legislation to ensure that workers of a certain number of named enterprises enjoyed the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, to allow workers to seek legal remedies against acts of anti-union discrimination at any time and not only during an industrial dispute, and to repeal section 65(5) of the Industrial Relation Ordinance which disqualified a trade union officer from holding a trade union office for committing an unfair labour practice, contrary to the right of workers to elect their representatives freely. It also requested the Government to provide information on whether there was an additional waiting period relative to strike notice before initiating a strike action, and if so, to indicate the duration. The Committee on Freedom of Association also requested the Government to engage in full consultations with the social partners for possible amendment of the Industrial Relation Ordinance to resolve the issue of the labour judiciary system to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. He recalled that the observation of the Committee of Experts had requested amendments to several Acts such as the Civil Servants Act, the Tribunal Act, the Essential Services Act, and the Banking Companies Ordinance, as well as the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, to ensure the rights under the Convention. He wanted the Government to be strongly urged to comply with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to amend its legislation, engage in social dialogue and move the Bill before Parliament in order to bring the law and practice in Pakistan into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Japan wished to raise two points in the case of Pakistan. First, since Pakistan ratified Convention No. 87, 52 years ago, there had been serious violations of the ILO principles, in particular of freedom of association. No public sector workers had ever enjoyed full trade union rights for over half a century. The speaker recalled the statements made by the Government delegate of Pakistan in the plenary session of the Conference and by the Government representative of Pakistan in this Committee regarding their commitment to bring the labour laws and the labour administration of Pakistan into conformity with the national objectives and the ILO Conventions ratified by Pakistan. However, he noted that in reality the Government of Pakistan had increased the restrictions on collective bargaining rights in various sectors by the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, and by applying a broader interpretation of so called "essential services" than that of the ILO supervisory bodies. In addition, the new laws on public sector workers imposed further restrictions on these workers by preventing them from appealing to the courts against unfair dismissal and by prohibiting any court intervention in such matters. If the new labour law was to be in conformity with ILO Conventions, all workers should be given full trade union rights.

A second point raised by the worker member of Japan concerned the so-called "union policy" which prevented workers in export processing zones (EPZs) from forming and joining trade unions of their own choice, to bargain collectively and to take industrial action. The primary purpose of this policy, which was not limited to Pakistan but was to be found elsewhere in the world as well, was to encourage foreign direct investment in EPZs. However, it neither respected basic trade union rights, nor was it compatible with sustainable development. He strongly urged the Government to comply, without any exceptions, with international labour standards in all areas.

The Government member of Cuba stated that Convention No. 98 had become more relevant by the day because of prevailing neo-liberal policies and the established growth in the number of multinational enterprises. She indicated that there were many countries that failed to apply this Convention but, for rather unclear reasons, had not yet been brought before this Committee. She concluded by supporting the statements made by the Government of Pakistan.

Another Government representative took careful note of the comments raised by the Worker and the Employer members. With respect to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the EPZs he pointed out that there was only one and not a multitude of EPZs in Pakistan. However, this was not to justify the constraints that might be imposed on the workers. He added that his delegation attached great importance to its international obligations and had not been shying away from them. In response to the comments made by the Worker member of Pakistan concerning the Government's obligation to bring the amended legislation before Parliament, he stated that the Government would continue to bring this issue to Parliament as much as possible. His delegation remained committed to a constructive dialogue and would continue to address the observations made.

The Worker members hoped that, as had been indicated by the Government representative, the points raised by the Committee of Experts would be examined and that the relevant texts would be transmitted so as to enable the Committee of Experts to evaluate the progress made. The Government should take effective measures as soon as possible with a view to bringing the legislation in conformity with the Convention. In this regard, the Government should be reminded of the possibility of technical assistance from the Office. The Worker members pointed out that it was not relevant to revert to the issue of the designation of the cases on the list in the middle of a discussion of one of the cases. The list had been adopted, the criteria were known, and these would never be mathematical criteria. Moreover, a review of the list of the last years would lead to the conclusion that they were very balanced.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been the subject of numerous discussions and observations and that the shortcomings in the national legislation were evident. They pointed out that discussions alone would not lead to any progress without a substantial effort on the part of the Government to overcome this situation. They urged the Government to fulfil its promises to bring national legislation into line with the Convention.

The Committee noted the statement made by the Government representative and the ensuing discussion. The Committee observed that for many years the Committee of Experts has been referring to a certain number of major discrepancies between law and practice on the one hand, and the provisions of the Convention on the other, in particular the limitations on the rights guaranteed by the Conventions for many categories of workers, especially those in the country's EPZs and in the public sector, as well as the lack of sufficient protection in law against anti-trade union dismissals. The Committee took due note of the statement by the Government to the effect that measures were being considered to modify some provisions of the legislation in question, especially with respect to the banking sector. However, the Committee noted with concern that according to the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 2003, the newly adopted legislation seemed unlikely to solve the difficulties. The Committee believed that the Committee of Experts had to examine the legislation with a view to assess whether it is in conformity with the Convention.

Consequently, the Committee urged the Government to take whatever measures are required to modify all the legislation in the near future, in full consultation with the workers' and employer's organizations, with a view to guaranteeing in full the rights contained in the Convention for all workers covered by its scope.

The Committee expressed the firm hope that it will be in a position to note specific progress in this case and requested the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the issues concerned, including information on all the proposals and changes in the relevant legislation, so that the Committee of Experts could examine the conformity of this legislation with the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative noted that the main point raised by the Committee of Experts concerned the Wage Commission. Until recently, all banks and financial institutions were in the public sector. There were two options for dealing with them, either (1) to allow all institutions to bargain on their own behalf or (2) to take steps to ensure uniformity in this sector. The Government had decided to introduce a uniform system for these banks. A Wage Commission was periodically set up at the demand of the workers. This Commission was tripartite in nature with representation from both workers and employers. The Chair was usually a senior judge in Pakistan. Both parties could present their demands before the Chair who would act as moderator and as arbitrator when a decision had to be taken. In reality, therefore, this system actually permitted for a negotiation process directly with the employer. If the positions of the workers and employers were blocked, the Chair tended to determine in favour of the worker. Recently, ten new banks had been established in the private sector, two of which had been national banks. Financial institutions were likely to become privatised as well. As the situation progressed, there would come a time when the Government would no longer need to enforce uniformity and the need for the Wage Commission might be reconsidered. At present, however, this system still worked and there had been no complaints from the workers in these institutions. Furthermore, these workers do have their own associations to represent them and have the right to strike.

The Workers' members noted that the Committee of Experts was obliged to repeat the comments it had been making concerning the non-application of this Convention on certain points since 1988. Furthermore, this case had been discussed in this Committee on previous occasions. The Committee of Experts had noted that free collective bargaining was not available to workers in the banking and financial sector, to airline workers and to workers in export processing zones. According to the information provided by the Government, the study undertaken to determine whether workers objected to the system of negotiation within the Wage Commission or whether they preferred direct bargaining indicated that the present system was working perfectly well and there were no problems. The Workers' members pointed out that this study would of course depend on the type of questions the workers were asked and the circumstances in which they were able to reply. Perhaps the Government representative had more information on this point. In any event, the Convention provided that workers had the right to bargain collectively directly with their employer without interference from an outside body. They appealed to the Government to review the provisions of the Ordinance concerning the rights of workers in the banking and financial sector in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members associated themselves with statement made by the Workers' members. They recalled that the discussion concerning the export processing zones already had taken place under Convention No. 87. The only permissible way of setting wages under this Convention was through direct collective bargaining. The Government, however, maintained an alternative system to that allowed under the Convention. It appeared that the problem would be resolved over time as the banking and financial sectors were privatised. Corrective action should, nevertheless, be taken as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of Pakistan appealed to the Government to review the situation in the banking sector and suggested that it consider technical assistance from the Office. The right to bargain directly with the employer should be provided to all workers, whether in the private sector or the public sector.

The Government representative indicated that his Government would request technical assistance from the Office in this regard.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government with some disappointment. It felt bound to conclude that no real progress had been made on the points raised by the Committee of Experts on previous occasions. In view, however, of the Government's willingness to ask for technical assistance, it expressed the firm hope that the Government would be in a position to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

In its previous comment, in relation to the 2020 observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure that pilots can exercise their right to collective bargaining through organizations that genuinely represent their interests, that the freely concluded collective agreements at the national airline company should be binding on the parties and to promote co-operation and dialogue among social partners in the aviation industry. Noting with regret that the Government does not provide information on any measures taken in this respect the Committee is therefore bound to reiterate its previous requests. The Committee had further requested the Government to respond to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) allegations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs that dated back to 2012 and 2015. The Government indicates in this regard that it is working to provide the right to establish and join organizations to all workers and employers and no anti-union dismissal or act of interference in union’s internal affairs could be done by the employers. It further cites the provisions of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (BIRA) 2022 concerning the prohibition of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by the employer. The Committee takes note of this information.

The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to it the legislative aspects of Case No. 2096 that relate to the Convention (Report No. 392, October 2020, paragraph 109). These matters are discussed below.

Articles 1-6 of the Convention. Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2012, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act (KPIRA) 2010, the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA) 2010 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act (SIRA) 2013, exclude numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its 2022 comments on the application of Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87)) from their scopes of application. The Government indicates in this regard that it is its obligation to extend the right to freedom of association to all sectors of the economy, formal and informal and further refers to the adoption of BIRA 2022, which scope of application covers “all workers and employers at all workplaces”(section 1(4)), with the exception of “the Police, Levies or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan or any services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to armed forces of Pakistan and essential services”(section 1(5)). The Committee notes with interest the legislative change in Balochistan, which has the effect of bringing many previously excluded categories of workers within the scope of the BIRA, allowing them to enjoy their rights under the Convention. It notes however, that the BIRA still excludes “any service or installation” connected to the armed forces, as well as “essential services”; and recalls in this regard that civilian personnel in the armed forces as well as workers in essential services should enjoy the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention. In view of the foregoing, while welcoming the legislative change in Balochistan, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial governments take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the police, the armed forces and the public servants engaged in the administration of the State benefit from the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information with respect to measures taken in this regard.

Export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that since the adoption by the federal Government of S.R.O 1004(1)/1982 dated 10 October 1982 relating to exemption of EPZs from various labour laws, the EPZs were exempted from the application of industrial relations legislation (clause 7 of the S.R.O, referring to the applicable law at the time, namely the Industrial Relation Ordinance of 1969). For many years, the Government kept reiterating that it was working on Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, which would guarantee the right of EPZ workers to organize. The Government indicates in this regard that it has “partially” withdrawn S.R.O 1004(1)/1982 “except clause 7” through a notification dated 5 August 2021 and that now the only exemption to the application of labour laws in the EPZs is the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It adds that the 2009 Rules have been finalized and the workers in EPZs can enjoy the rights guaranteed under the Convention accordingly. The Committee notes however, that the Government does not provide a copy of the final version of 2009 Rules and therefore it is not in the position to evaluate whether and to what extent these Rules guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. In view of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the final version of the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009. It firmly hopes that the rights of EPZ workers under the convention, especially their right to collective bargaining, is duly guaranteed in law and in practice and requests the Government to provide information concerning any collective bargaining taking place in the EPZs and any collective agreements concluded there, including the names of the parties and the number of workers covered.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. For the past 20 years, the Committee has repeatedly urged the Government to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, which imposes penal sanctions (up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fines) for the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Government indicates in this regard that after the promulgation of IRA 2012, almost all trade unions in banking sector are regulated under the federal law because of their trans-provincial character and despite section 27-B, unions in the banks are registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and are properly working. It provides a list of unions in the banks all over the country. More precisely regarding section 27-B itself, the Government once again indicates that the Ministry is vigorously pursuing the matter with the concerned quarters for its removal. The Committee notes with deep concern that no progress is reported concerning the repealing of section 27-B, which punishes trade unionists for legitimate union activities and so constitutes a serious infringement of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government once again to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, to enable workers in the banking sector to exercise trade union activities in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention.

Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 19 of the IRA and section 24(1) of the KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry in the KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA) but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industry. In its previous comments, it had considered that these rules constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. The Government indicates in this regard that section 24(1) of BIRA 2022 has incorporated the recommendation of the Committee and reads “A trade union shall be permitted to act as a collective bargaining agent on behalf of its members”. It adds that the other laws would be amended accordingly in consultation with the social partners. While noting with interest the change introduced in BIRA, and welcoming the Government’s expression of intent to amend other federal and provincial laws likewise, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the legislation will be soon amended, with a view to ensuring that when there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee notes that the provisions on the determination of collective bargaining units give competence in this regard to the NIRC (section 62 of the IRA), the Labour Appellate Tribunal (section 25 of the KPIRA and PIRA) or the Registrar (section 25 of the BIRA and SIRA) and that previously certified unions can lose their status of collective bargaining agents as a result of a decision in which the parties played no part. The Committee notes with concern that BIRA 2022 reproduces this provision, and regrets that the Government does not report any measures taken to revise the law in this respect. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that the necessary measures are taken by the federal and provincial governments to amend the legislation so that the social partners can participate in the determination or modification of the collective bargaining unit.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure that both federal and provincial governments guarantee that the existence of elected workers’ representatives directly elected to work councils is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives and to submit a copy of the Rules providing the notice and procedure for the election of workers’ representatives to work councils. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information in this respect. It is therefore bound to reiterate its request.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes with deep regret, that the Government has not responded to its repeated requests to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned, and the number of workers covered, as well as on any measures taken to promote collective bargaining. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will communicate the requested information in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide its reply to the 2020 observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), denouncing serious allegations of anti-union discrimination by the national airline company, including the unilateral de-recognition of the Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA) and other employees’ associations in the company, as well as the termination of all working agreements with immediate effect. The Committee notes the Government’s comments that: (i) the PALPA is neither a registered trade union nor a recognized collective bargaining agent under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA) but an association of persons registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and even this status is jeopardized in a lawsuit before the Sind High Court; (ii) only the IRA and its provincial variants recognize the forum of collective bargaining agent, which can engage in collective bargaining and, under the IRA, only an agreement with the collective bargaining agent is binding on workers and employers; (iii) any agreement that the PALPA had reached was therefore a civil contract which could be terminated by any party with notice to the other party and not a settlement with legal force under the IRA; and (iv) the airline company does not intend to stop trade union and collective bargaining activities in the establishment, which continue to take place, and it recognizes all its duly registered trade unions and collective bargaining agents. While taking due note of the above, the Committee observes that, according to the ITF observations: (i) the PALPA would be the sole representative organization for pilots in the country; (ii) its de-recognition would therefore deprive this category of workers of effective means of negotiating the terms and conditions of employment and defending their interests; and (iii) the annulment of all concluded working agreements would have a serious impact on the working conditions of the pilots of the referred airline. The Committee further observes that the restriction of the PALPA’s bargaining rights would appear to be linked to the fact that the workers concerned are organized through an association of persons and not a trade union under the IRA, a matter which was already raised under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee also observes in this regard that the Committee on Freedom of Association previously noted that trade union rights had been restored to workers at the company (see 353rd Report, March 2009, Case No. 2242, paragraph 177) and while recalling that, since then, a new IRA was adopted in 2012, it notes with regret that, according to the information provided, there appears to be a step backwards in terms of trade union rights and the right to collective bargaining at the company. The Committee recalls in this respect that the Convention guarantees collective bargaining rights to all workers except the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6). In view of the above and given the serious nature of the allegations made, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that pilots from both private and public companies can, in law and in practice, negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment through organizations that genuinely represent their interests and to ensure the principle that freely concluded collective agreements should be binding on the parties. Further emphasizing the importance of social dialogue in crisis situations, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to promote co-operation and dialogue among all the social partners in the aviation industry, as an effective means to resolving any outstanding issues and maintaining harmonious labour relations in the sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in this respect.

The Committee had also previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the 2012 and 2015 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and Human Resource Development (OPHRD) is in close contact with the respective provincial departments and that a detailed response will be provided in its next regular report. Regretting the delay in the Government’s response to allegations that date back to 2012 and 2015, the Committee expects the Government to provide its comments in this regard without further delay.

Scope of application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the IRA, the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA) and the Sindh IRA (SIRA) excluded numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its 2018 comments on the application of Convention No. 87) from their scopes of application. It therefore urged the Government to ensure that the federal, as well as provincial governments, take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee regrets that the Government does not provide any details as to the measures taken or envisaged in this respect and that its response is limited to reiterating the general protection provided to workers by the federal and regional legislative and institutional frameworks. Regretting the lack of any tangible progress in this regard and emphasizing that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention), the Committee urges the Government once again to ensure that the federal, as well as provincial governments, take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the legislation to this effect. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any legislative measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comment, the Committee noted with deep regret the lack of progress in the drawing up of rules that would grant the right to organize to EPZ workers and urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the new Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 would guarantee the right to organize to EPZ workers and to accelerate the process of their drafting and approval. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information about the status of the EPZ Rules, 2009 but informs that the application of labour laws was extended to EPZs and that the provision on the prohibition of strike was deleted from the EPZ Rules, 1982, allowing workers to invoke the right to strike in relation to their demands concerning employment issues. While welcoming this information, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide further details as to the overall impact of these changes on freedom of association of EPZ workers and observes from the text of the Ministerial notification (No. 7(11)/2008-FAC from 5 August 2021) that the EPZs remain exempted from the application of the IRA, which regulates the formation of trade unions, the determination of collective bargaining agents and the relations between workers and employers. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the extent to which the rights provided by the Convention are guaranteed to workers in EPZs following the mentioned legislative changes. The Committee also requests the Government to consider extending the application of the industrial relations laws, as amended in line with the Committee’s comments, to EPZs, or to take any other necessary measures to ensure that EPZ workers can fully benefit from all the rights provided by the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to repeal the penal sanctions for the exercise of trade union activities during office hours (imprisonment and/or fines) provided under section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it was agreed in a tripartite meeting to permit only those union activities during office hours that relate to redress of grievances and it therefore reiterated its request. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (i) the Ministry of OPHRD makes persistent efforts to amend section 27-B and is engaged with other ministries and relevant stakeholders, including social partners, to reach consensus on the subject; and (ii) to accelerate these efforts, a meeting of the concerned stakeholders was organized by the Ministry of Finance and the dialogue on the subject continues. Recalling that for the past 19 years it has been requesting the Government to repeal the penal sanctions provided for in section 27-B, the Committee notes with deep concern the lack of any substantial progress in this regard. The Committee therefore urges the Government once again to take all the necessary measures to repeal section 27-B so as to enable workers in the banking sector to exercise trade union activities, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA and section 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA) but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industry. The Committee recalled that the determination of the threshold of representativeness to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee also noted that the provisions on the determination of collective bargaining units gave competence in this regard to the National and Provincial Industrial Relations Commission (sections 62 of the IRA and 30 of the BIRA), the Labour Appellate Tribunal (section 25 of the KPIRA and PIRA) or the Registrar (section 25 of the SIRA) and that previously certified unions could lose the status of collective bargaining agents as a result of a decision in which the parties played no role. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that the necessary measures are taken by the federal and provincial governments to amend the legislation, so that the determination or modification of the collective bargaining unit is made by the social partners, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level.

The Committee further noted with interest that, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, worker members of work councils were chosen through an election but considered that even if a union could persuade workers to vote for its members to be represented in several entities (shop stewards, work councils and joint management boards), there was a risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives. Having noted that a reform of the Provincial Tripartite Consultation Committees was being considered, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that both the federal and provincial governments guarantee that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives and to submit a copy of the Rules providing the notice and procedure for the election of workers’ representatives to work councils.

Regretting that the Government does not provide any updated information in relation to the above matters concerning collective bargaining, the Committee reiterates its requests in this regard and expects the Government to make every effort to advance on the outstanding issues, both by the federal and the provincial governments, so as to achieve compliance with the Convention, and to provide detailed information on the progress made.

Collective bargaining in practice. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government simply states that the Ministry of OPHRD is in close contact with the respective provincial departments authorized to collect and compile the required information about collective bargaining under their jurisdiction, which will be provided in its next regular report. The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to provide detailed information in this respect in its next report.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide detailed information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee recalls that the ILO project financed by the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards is being implemented in Pakistan and trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) received on 2 July 2020 denouncing anti-union measures by the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), including in May 2020 the unilateral de-recognition of the Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA) and other employees’ associations in the company, as well as the termination of all working agreements with immediate effect. According to the ITF, the airline company argued their non-legal status as collective bargaining agents under the Industrial Relations Act, and the situation is characterized by the repression against the expression of any worker concerns. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these serious allegations.

The Committee also requests the Government to reply in full to other pending comments under the Convention adopted in 2018.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2018 and the Government replies thereto. It also notes the Government’s reply to the ITUC 2017 observations. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the Government has not fully responded to the 2012 and 2015 ITUC allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation, and blacklisting of trade unions and their members). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on these observations.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted: (i) that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces; (ii) the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments covering more than one province (section 1(2) and (3) of the IRA), and the content of which did not address most of the Committee’s previous comments; (iii) the adoption in 2010 of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, all of which raised similar issues as the IRA. The Committee had also noted the adoption in 2013 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA), which replaced the former industrial relations legislation, and the amendment of the BIRA in 2015. It also noted the Government’s statement that the responsibility for the coordination of labour-related issues and the responsibility to ensure that provincial labour laws are drafted in accordance with international ratified Conventions, lie with the federal Government.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA excluded numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), from their scopes of application, and – as far as the BIRA is concerned – workers employed in tribal areas. It notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the exclusions identified under the PIRA are meant for smooth sailing of the governance and to provide uninterrupted public services without causing any harm or hardship to the public; (ii) the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will forward the point for discussion and opinion to the Provincial Tripartite Consultation Committee (PTCC); (iii) the Government of Balochistan has proposed necessary amendments in the upcoming BIRA, 2017; furthermore, in its report under Convention No. 87 the Government states that an amendment proposal has been made that would allow workers employed in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas to enjoy freedom of association rights; and (iv) the Government of Sindh has already taken steps to provide the right of association to agriculture and fisheries workers under SIRA 2013 and workmen employed in various government departments enjoy the right of association. The security staff, however, cannot be granted the right of association due to security reasons and public interest. Furthermore the Government of Sindh is going to submit a proposal to expand the coverage of SIRA in hospitals and educational institutions.

With regard to public servants in particular, the Committee had previously noted that the IRA does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)), and that the BIRA, KPIRA, and PIRA and section 1(3)(ii) of the SIRA add the words “as workman employed by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. The Committee had also observed that the wording in section 1(3)(b)) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA “shall not apply to persons employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post” could imply that certain persons employed in public enterprises are deemed employed in the administration of the State and excluded from the scope of the laws, and had requested the Government to provide information in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Committee’s comments are noted for future progress and development of legislation and the respective Governments with the support of the social partners are doing the necessary to address the anomalies and ambiguities in the legislation; (ii) the employees of “Authorities”, “Autonomous bodies” and state corporations in ministries and provincial governments with certain exceptions are covered under industrial relations laws; (iii) the workers of the “State administration” and their attached departments where workers are covered under the definition of civil servants do not form unions under the industrial relations laws, but they can establish “associations”; for the last two decades these associations have been very active, the movement of Clerks Association and All Pakistan Lady Health Workers Welfare Associations being two prominent examples; (iv) persons employed in public enterprises are within the scope of the existing industrial relations laws as these laws are applicable to all establishments, either public enterprises/government institutions or private limited companies, except those which are excluded; the only test is the status of the person employed. If the person fulfils the requisites of being a workman under the definition of the law, they fall within the scope of the law; (v) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the public servants employed in the administration of the State who temporarily join public entrepreneurs are excluded from the ambit of KPIRA as they fall within the scope of Civil Establishment Code/Civil Servant Act, 1973; and (vi) in Sindh, workmen employed in government departments like agriculture, irrigations, union councils and town committees, and the Karachi Development Authority, enjoy the right of association and have formed unions in their respective departments.

The Committee notes, in particular, the Government’s indication that in all establishments including the public enterprises, only “workmen” are within the scope of the industrial relations laws. It further notes that pursuant to the “explanation” of section 2(ix)(d) and (e) of the IRA; section 2(i), (iv) and (v) of the BIRA, section 2(vii)(d) and (e) of the KPIRA and section 2(viii)(d) and (e) of the PIRA and SIRA, officers and employees of federal and provincial governments or local authorities who belong to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directorial, supervisory or agency staff who have been notified for this purpose in the official Gazette, shall be deemed to fall in the category of “employers” and in relation to any other establishment, the proprietor of such establishment and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof is considered an employer. The Committee notes with concern that the industrial relations acts state that the rights provided in the Convention, including the right to represent the members for collective bargaining purposes are recognized only for workmen’s trade unions (sections 19 and 20 of the IRA; section 24 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA) thus excluding secretarial, supervisory or agency staff in governments and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of any other establishment from the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes in this respect the PWF’s observation that by virtue of the narrow definition of worker and workman, and pursuant to sections 31(2) of the IRA and 17(2) of the BIRA, KPIRA, SIRA and PIRA, a workman on promotion has to leave the trade union and become deprived from the benefit of collective bargaining and collective agreement.

Taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee again emphasizes that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention). In particular, the Committee recalls that the exceptions relating to the armed forces and the police do not automatically apply to all employees who may carry a weapon in the course of their duties or to civilian personnel in the armed forces, fire service personnel, and members of the security services of civil aviation companies, workers engaged in security printing services and members of the security or fire services of oil refineries, airports and seaports. The Committee also considers that by depriving all managerial, secretarial and agency employees in both public and private sectors, who are neither members of armed forces or the police, nor engaged in the administration of the State from the right to collective bargaining, the federal and provincial industrial relations laws fail to respect the Convention in its full personal scope of application. Recalling its repeated requests in this respect, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that it, as well as the governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

Export processing zones (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 would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the proposed rules were shared with the investors of the EPZ Authority (EPZA) as any change in the incentive package under which an investment/scheme has been sanctioned in a zone shall not be made except where such change is more advantageous to the investors and is also accepted by them. The Government adds that any change in the EPZA law would involve formal endorsement of the Board of the EPZA followed by the approval of Parliament and the matter is still being discussed at a higher level in order to carve out a strategy to amend the law. Recalling that for the past 13 years, the Government has indicated that it is in the process of drawing up rules that would grant the right to organize to EPZ workers, the Committee deeply regrets the lack of progress in this regard. Recalling that workers in the EPZs should benefit from the rights guaranteed under the Convention, and that the deprivation of workers from the right to organize should not be considered as an incentive for investors, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the new Rules guarantee the right to organize, to accelerate the process of their drafting and approval and to provide detailed information on the progress made.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in a tripartite meeting held in August 2018 at the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development, it was agreed that the Ministry will submit a proposal for amendment on section 27-B to the Government. The Government further indicates that at the end of this meeting it was decided to permit only those union activities during office hours that relate to redressal of grievances. Recalling that for the past 16 years it has been requesting the Government to repeal the penal sanctions provided for in section 27-B, the Committee notes with concern that the outcome of the tripartite meeting seems to fall short of its longstanding request. It therefore urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to repeal section 27-B so as to enable the workers in the banking sector to exercise trade union activities, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA, and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry, in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA), but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industries. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the former industrial relations legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of the above-cited provisions is not to give a hard time to genuine unions and to restrict the only trade union to act as a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA), but to restrict and discourage the fake and bogus unions. No ballot is held for a single union to prove one-third strength, it is up to the satisfaction of the Registrar and usually a simple procedure (signatures of members and workmen) is adopted. The Government further indicates that the removal of the requirement of one-third majority may give rise to the menace of pocket unionism through small unrepresented and planted collective bargaining agents, working for the interest of the management and against the workmen, and if small unions are given the right of collective bargaining, no union will vie to get a status of CBA. Taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee recalls in this respect that the determination of the threshold of representativeness to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. The Committee therefore is not requesting the Government to remove the one third majority requirement for the acquisition of the exclusive CBA status. However, the Committee considers that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativeness to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, minority trade unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee underlines the importance that the governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

The Committee notes that sections 62(3) of the IRA, 25(3) of the KPIRA and PIRA, 25(2) of the SIRA and 30(3) of the BIRA, provide that, after the certification of a Collective Bargaining Unit (CBU), no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such a unit. It further notes that pursuant to section 62 of the IRA, 30 of the BIRA, respectively National and Provincial Industrial Relations Commission is competent for determination of collective bargaining units; and that pursuant to section 25 of the KPIRA and the PIRA, the Labour Appellate Tribunal and pursuant to section 25 of the SIRA, the Registrar are competent in this regard. The decisions on determination of collective bargaining units are appealable before the full bench of the Commission pursuant to IRA and BIRA, before the Supreme Court pursuant to KPIRA and PIRA, and before the Labour Appellate Tribunal pursuant to SIRA. The Committee notes that these provisions can entail the loss of status of collective bargaining agent for previously certified unions as a result of a decision in which the parties play no role, and that one such case is mentioned in ITUC 2017 observations. The Committee recalls that it had noted similar provisions under the previous IRA according to which the NIRC could determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the federal Government, and had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that under the new industrial relations legislation, the choice of collective bargaining unit can be made by the social partners, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level. The Committee regrets that the federal and provincial laws adopted subsequently reproduced the previous provision. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the necessary measures are taken by the federal and provincial governments to amend the legislation, so that the social partners can play a part in the determination on modification of the collective bargaining unit is made by the social partners themselves and to inform on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 50 workers (25 workers, in the case of the IRA) to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and to help workers in the settlement of their problems (sections 23 and 24 of the IRA, 33 of the BIRA, 29 of the KPIRA and 28 of the PIRA); (ii) works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers, have multiple functions (sections 25 and 26 of the IRA, 39 and 40 of the BIRA, 35 and 36 of the KPIRA, and 29 of the PIRA and SIRA), and its members are either nominated by a collective bargaining agent or, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, elected (PIRA and SIRA) or “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment” (IRA, BIRA and KPIRA); and (iii) management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions without the advice of workers’ representatives, who can be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) (section 27 of the IRA, 34 of the BIRA, 30 of the KPIRA and 29 of the PIRA and SIRA); and (iv) joint management boards shall look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. (sections 28 of the IRA, 35 of the BIRA, and 31 of the KPIRA). These functions are assigned to works councils under the PIRA and SIRA (section 29(5)). The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that it, as well as the governments of the provinces, take appropriate measures to guarantee that, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, all workers’ representatives sitting on the above entities are being elected, and that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives. In this regard the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) in cases where there is no collective bargaining agent, the employer shall hold elections to elect the representatives of workmen for the works council by a notice and procedure laid down in Rules; and (ii) in a meeting arranged to discuss the recommendations of the Committee all stakeholders agreed that the alternate system for determination of workers’ representatives in establishments where no labour union was available could be made more effective through reform. Therefore all representatives of Provincial Labour Departments were requested to discuss the issue in the meetings of their respective PTCCs. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that worker members of the work councils are elected and requests the Government to provide a copy of the Rules that provide the notice and procedure for their election. However, the Committee considers that, where there is no collective bargaining agent, the fact that the trade union can seek to persuade the workers during the elections to vote for its members to be represented in the above entities does not fully eliminate the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives. Noting that a possibility of reform is being considered within the PTCC’s, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the governments of the provinces, guarantee that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives. It also requests the Government to submit a copy of the Rules providing the notice and procedure for the election of the workers’ representatives in the work councils.

Compulsory conciliation. Having noted that compulsory conciliation is required by law in the collective bargaining process, the Committee had previously observed that the conciliator is appointed either directly by the Government (sections 43 of the BIRA, 39 of the KPIRA, 35 of the PIRA and 36 of the SIRA) or by the Commission whose ten members are appointed by the Government, with only one member representing employers and another one representing trade unions (section 53 of the IRA). It had underlined that the system of appointment of the conciliator, as well as the composition of the Commission, could raise questions concerning the confidence of the social partners in the system. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it agrees with the Committee’s comment and the current procedure for appointment of conciliators is satisfactorily working. The Government further transmits the responses of the governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh and the National Industrial Relations Commission, all stating that the process is working well, that no complaint has been received from any party and that if there is any complaint of partiality, appropriate mechanisms are available to the aggrieved party. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government.

Concerning section 6 of the IRA, the Committee refers to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in the direct request.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee notes that the ILO project financed by the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards is being implemented in Pakistan and trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017, which refer to issues relating to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and alleged anti-union dismissals, harassment and acts of interference, as well as the observations from the Pakistan Workers Federation (PWF) received on 25 October 2017 referring mainly to legislative issues under examination by the Committee and alleged acts of employer interference through systematic undue promotions. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the Government has failed to provide its comments on the 2015 ITUC allegations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and to fully respond to the 2012 ITUC allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation and blacklisting of trade unions and their members). Noting with concern the persistence and seriousness of the numerous allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the abovementioned observations and to ensure that investigations are conducted by the public authorities into the relevant 2012, 2015 and 2017 ITUC and PWF allegations.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted: (i) that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution had been enacted, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces; (ii) the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments covering more than one province (section 1(2) and (3) of the IRA), and the content of which did not address most of the Committee’s previous comments; (iii) the adoption in 2010 of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, all of which raised similar issues as the IRA. The Committee notes the adoption in 2013 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, (SIRA) which replaces the former industrial relations legislation and the amendment of the BIRA in 2015. It also notes the Government’s statement that the responsibility for the coordination of labour-related issues and the responsibility to ensure that provincial labour laws are drafted in accordance with international ratified Conventions lie with the federal Government.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA excluded numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)) from their scopes of application, and – as far as the BIRA is concerned – workers employed in tribal areas. The Committee notes that the SIRA contains the same provisions as the KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that the exclusions are based on the peculiar nature of the workers’ organizations and their functioning, and that the list of exclusions has been reduced considerably compared to the former legislation. The Committee emphasizes that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention). The Committee further notes that in its report under Convention No. 87 the Government states that according to the Government of Balochistan, necessary amendments to the BIRA are being proposed, in order to ensure that only armed forces and police are excluded from its scope and allow workers employed in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas to enjoy freedom of association rights. The Committee notes however that the BIRA, as amended, still excludes tribal areas from its scope of application and retains the exclusions enumerated under Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

With regard to public servants in particular, the Committee had previously noted that the IRA does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)), and that the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA add the words “as workmen employed by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. The Committee had requested the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the administration of the State excluded from the scope of application of the legislation. The Committee notes that section 1(3)(ii) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that persons employed in the administration of the State means persons engaged in the federal secretariat and various attached departments as well as the federal legislature, and, similarly, persons employed in provincial civil secretariats as well as attached departments and provincial legislatures. While noting that these exclusions would be in line with the Convention, the Committee observes that the wording in section 1(3)(b) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA “shall not apply to persons employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post” could imply that certain persons employed in public enterprises are deemed employed in the administration of the State and excluded from the scope. The Committee recalls that the determination of this category of workers is to be made on a case by case basis, in light of criteria relating to the prerogatives of the public authorities (and particularly the authority to impose and enforce rules and obligations and to penalize non-compliance), and that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies and ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (for instance, employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, as well as public sector teachers). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether persons employed in public enterprises are excluded from the scope of application of the industrial relations legislation, and, if so, to specify which categories of persons so employed are excluded, as well as any current or proposed legislation enabling them to fully benefit from the rights afforded by the Convention.

Export processing zones (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 would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no further information in this respect. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, and a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes with deep concern that 14 years after its first observation on the issue, and after having stated on several occasions that legislative measures to repeal section 27-B were being taken, the Government now asserts that this provision is not in contravention with the Convention. The Committee expects that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the very near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA, and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA), but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industries. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the former industrial relations legislation. The Committee notes that section 24(1) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, PIRA and KPIRA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the minimum requirement of membership (33.3 per cent of total workers) is to promote democratic principles for the promotion of healthy and popular trade unionism; (ii) since Pakistan follows an industrial relations system where a union, after being elected as collective bargaining agent, is granted the exclusive right to represent all workers, collective bargaining rights cannot be granted to any union in the absence of a referendum process and merely on the basis of its own membership; and (iii) the Government of Balochistan and the Government of Sindh have informed that they are consulting with their respective provincial law departments. The Committee recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativity to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. In this regard, the Committee considers that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativity to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, minority trade unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee underlines the importance that the Governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 50 workers (25 workers in the case of the IRA) to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and to help workers in the settlement of their problems (sections 23 and 24 of the IRA, 33 of the BIRA, 29 of the KPIRA and 28 of the PIRA); (ii) works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers, have multiple functions (sections 25 and 26 of the IRA, 39 and 40 of the BIRA, 35 and 36 of the KPIRA, and 29 of the PIRA), and its members are either nominated by a collective bargaining agent or, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, elected (PIRA) or “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment” (IRA, BIRA and KPIRA); (iii) management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions without the advice of workers’ representatives who can be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) (section 27 of the IRA, 34 of the BIRA, 30 of the KPIRA and 29 of the PIRA); and (iv) joint management boards shall look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. (these functions are granted to works councils under the PIRA) (sections 28 of the IRA, 35 of the BIRA, and 31 of the KPIRA). The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that the position of trade unions is not undermined by the existence of other workers’ representatives, particularly when there is no collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes that sections 28, 29 and 30 of the SIRA contain the same provisions as the PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the position of a single union having less than 33 per cent of the workforce as its membership is not jeopardized through the institutions of shop steward, workers representatives and joint management boards; (ii) workers in these institutions are elected through secret ballot and a union can campaign or canvass the workers to vote for its members for having the highest representation in these institutions; and (iii) moreover, these institutions work even in the presence of a collective bargaining agent. The Committee considers that, where there is no collective bargaining agent, the fact that the trade union can seek to persuade the workers during the elections to vote for its members to be represented in the above entities does not eliminate the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives; moreover, in the case of the works council, its representatives are not elected but “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment”, which aggravates the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take appropriate measures to guarantee that, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, workers’ representatives in the above entities are not arbitrarily appointed, and that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives.

Compulsory conciliation. Having noted that compulsory conciliation is required by law in the collective bargaining process, the Committee had previously observed that the conciliator is appointed either directly by the Government (sections 43 of the BIRA, 39 of the KPIRA, 35 of the PIRA) or by the Commission whose ten members are appointed by the Government, with only one member representing employers and another one representing trade unions (section 53 of the IRA). The Committee had underlined that the system of appointment of the conciliator, as well as the composition of the Commission, could raise questions concerning the confidence of the social partners in the system. The Committee notes that section 36 of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the role of the conciliator begins after referral of an industrial dispute to him or her under the industrial relations legislation, and as of that moment a government official who is supposed to be a neutral person has to strive for bringing the parties to an amicable solution; and (ii) involving any social partner in appointing the conciliator may call into question the very neutrality of the conciliator and result in legal complications. The Committee considers that dispute resolution proceedings should not only be strictly impartial but also appear to be impartial both to the employers and to the workers concerned. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take measures to guarantee an impartial conciliation mechanism which has the confidence of the parties, for example, by ensuring that there is no opposition by the social partners to the appointment of their conciliators.

Concerning section 6 of the IRA, the Committee refers to its comments made under Convention No. 87 in its 2016 direct request.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee welcomes the ILO project financed by the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards targeting four countries and notably Pakistan. The Committee trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2018.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015 referring to new allegations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the Government has not responded to the 2012 ITUC allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation and blacklisting of trade unions and their members). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on these observations.

The Committee also notes the observations of the Employers Federation of Pakistan (EFP) included in the Government’s report concerning matters being examined by the Committee.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted: (i) that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution had been enacted, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces; (ii) the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments covering more than one province (section 1(2) and (3) of the IRA), and the content of which did not address most of the Committee’s previous comments; (iii) the adoption in 2010 of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, all of which raised similar issues as the IRA. The Committee notes the adoption in 2013 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, (SIRA) which replaces the former industrial relations legislation and the amendment of the BIRA in 2015. It also notes the Government’s statement that the responsibility for the coordination of labour-related issues and the responsibility to ensure that provincial labour laws are drafted in accordance with international ratified Conventions lie with the federal Government.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA excluded numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)) from their scopes of application, and – as far as the BIRA is concerned – workers employed in tribal areas. The Committee notes that the SIRA contains the same provisions as the KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that the exclusions are based on the peculiar nature of the workers’ organizations and their functioning, and that the list of exclusions has been reduced considerably compared to the former legislation. The Committee emphasizes that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention). The Committee further notes that in its report under Convention No. 87 the Government states that according to the Government of Balochistan, necessary amendments to the BIRA are being proposed, in order to ensure that only armed forces and police are excluded from its scope and allow workers employed in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas to enjoy freedom of association rights. The Committee notes however that the BIRA, as amended, still excludes tribal areas from its scope of application and retains the exclusions enumerated under Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

With regard to public servants in particular, the Committee had previously noted that the IRA does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)), and that the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA add the words “as workmen employed by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. The Committee had requested the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the administration of the State excluded from the scope of application of the legislation. The Committee notes that section 1(3)(ii) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that persons employed in the administration of the State means persons engaged in the federal secretariat and various attached departments as well as the federal legislature, and, similarly, persons employed in provincial civil secretariats as well as attached departments and provincial legislatures. While noting that these exclusions would be in line with the Convention, the Committee observes that the wording in section 1(3)(b) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA “shall not apply to persons employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post” could imply that certain persons employed in public enterprises are deemed employed in the administration of the State and excluded from the scope. The Committee recalls that the determination of this category of workers is to be made on a case by case basis, in light of criteria relating to the prerogatives of the public authorities (and particularly the authority to impose and enforce rules and obligations and to penalize non-compliance), and that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies and ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (for instance, employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, as well as public sector teachers). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether persons employed in public enterprises are excluded from the scope of application of the industrial relations legislation, and, if so, to specify which categories of persons so employed are excluded, as well as any current or proposed legislation enabling them to fully benefit from the rights afforded by the Convention.

Export processing zones (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 would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no further information in this respect. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, and a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes with deep concern that 14 years after its first observation on the issue, and after having stated on several occasions that legislative measures to repeal section 27-B were being taken, the Government now asserts that this provision is not in contravention with the Convention. The Committee expects that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the very near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA, and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA), but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industries. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the former industrial relations legislation. The Committee notes that section 24(1) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, PIRA and KPIRA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the minimum requirement of membership (33.3 per cent of total workers) is to promote democratic principles for the promotion of healthy and popular trade unionism; (ii) since Pakistan follows an industrial relations system where a union, after being elected as collective bargaining agent, is granted the exclusive right to represent all workers, collective bargaining rights cannot be granted to any union in the absence of a referendum process and merely on the basis of its own membership; and (iii) the Government of Balochistan and the Government of Sindh have informed that they are consulting with their respective provincial law departments. The Committee recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativity to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. In this regard, the Committee considers that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativity to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, minority trade unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee underlines the importance that the Governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 50 workers (25 workers in the case of the IRA) to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and to help workers in the settlement of their problems (sections 23 and 24 of the IRA, 33 of the BIRA, 29 of the KPIRA and 28 of the PIRA); (ii) works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers, have multiple functions (sections 25 and 26 of the IRA, 39 and 40 of the BIRA, 35 and 36 of the KPIRA, and 29 of the PIRA), and its members are either nominated by a collective bargaining agent or, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, elected (PIRA) or “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment” (IRA, BIRA and KPIRA); (iii) management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions without the advice of workers’ representatives who can be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) (section 27 of the IRA, 34 of the BIRA, 30 of the KPIRA and 29 of the PIRA); and (iv) joint management boards shall look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. (these functions are granted to works councils under the PIRA) (sections 28 of the IRA, 35 of the BIRA, and 31 of the KPIRA). The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that the position of trade unions is not undermined by the existence of other workers’ representatives, particularly when there is no collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes that sections 28, 29 and 30 of the SIRA contain the same provisions as the PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the position of a single union having less than 33 per cent of the workforce as its membership is not jeopardized through the institutions of shop steward, workers representatives and joint management boards; (ii) workers in these institutions are elected through secret ballot and a union can campaign or canvass the workers to vote for its members for having the highest representation in these institutions; and (iii) moreover, these institutions work even in the presence of a collective bargaining agent. The Committee considers that, where there is no collective bargaining agent, the fact that the trade union can seek to persuade the workers during the elections to vote for its members to be represented in the above entities does not eliminate the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives; moreover, in the case of the works council, its representatives are not elected but “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment”, which aggravates the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take appropriate measures to guarantee that, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, workers’ representatives in the above entities are not arbitrarily appointed, and that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives.

Compulsory conciliation. Having noted that compulsory conciliation is required by law in the collective bargaining process, the Committee had previously observed that the conciliator is appointed either directly by the Government (sections 43 of the BIRA, 39 of the KPIRA, 35 of the PIRA) or by the Commission whose ten members are appointed by the Government, with only one member representing employers and another one representing trade unions (section 53 of the IRA). The Committee had underlined that the system of appointment of the conciliator, as well as the composition of the Commission, could raise questions concerning the confidence of the social partners in the system. The Committee notes that section 36 of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the role of the conciliator begins after referral of an industrial dispute to him or her under the industrial relations legislation, and as of that moment a government official who is supposed to be a neutral person has to strive for bringing the parties to an amicable solution; and (ii) involving any social partner in appointing the conciliator may call into question the very neutrality of the conciliator and result in legal complications. The Committee considers that dispute resolution proceedings should not only be strictly impartial but also appear to be impartial both to the employers and to the workers concerned. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take measures to guarantee an impartial conciliation mechanism which has the confidence of the parties, for example, by ensuring that there is no opposition by the social partners to the appointment of their conciliators.

Concerning section 6 of the IRA, the Committee refers to its comments made under Convention No. 87 in its direct request.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee welcomes the ILO project financed by the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards targeting four countries and notably Pakistan. The Committee trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the Government on the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the allegation of intimidation on the part of employers in which it indicates that: (1) employers and employees are the main actors in industrial relations; (2) the system works with mutual understanding; and (3) any misunderstanding between the parties might lead to mistrust but in case of any grievance, the workers have the right to approach labour courts and any other courts of law. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 31 July 2012, referring to similar issues as the ones raised in its 2010 and 2011 communications and, in particular, to allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation, and blacklisting of trade unions and their members). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the 2012 ITUC allegations.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces. In this respect, the Committee expressed the hope that any new legislation, whether at the provincial or national levels, would be adopted in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that these instruments would be in full conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that industrial relations acts have been adopted in the Provinces of Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, Punjab and Sindh in 2010. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federation of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments which cover more than one province (section 1(2) and (3)), replaces the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2011. It notes with regret that most of its previous comments on the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, and on the IRO, 2011, have not been addressed by the IRA, 2012. It further notes that the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 (SIRA), revives the IRA, 2008, omitting section 87(3), and that the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA) and the Punjab IRA (PIRA) all raise similar issues as the IRA, 2012.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee notes that by virtue of their sections 1(3), the IRA, 2012, the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA maintain the same exclusion from their scope of application as previously existed under the IRO 2002 and IRA 2008 (independent agricultural workers, workers of charitable organizations, workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited, etc.), and that the definition of “worker” and “workman” excludes any person who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity, as examined in detail by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee further notes that the BIRA excludes tribal areas from its scope. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the industrial relations laws have been framed after consultation with workers’ organizations and that the IRA 2012 is applicable to all categories of workers with certain exceptions that have been made due to the specific security situation in the country. The Committee recalls that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention. It underlines the importance that the governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers in Balochistan’s tribal areas enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

With regard to public servants, the Committee notes that the IRA does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)) – the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA adds “as workman employed by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. The Government indicates that “persons employed in the administration of the State” imply persons employed in Government departments. The Committee requests again the Government to specify and provide examples of categories of workers employed in the administration of the State excluded from the scope of application of the legislation.

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 would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the rules have not yet been finalized. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, or a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Government indicated that the Federal Cabinet at its meeting held on 1 May 2010 approved the repeal of this provision and that the final legislation is under preparation. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that amendment of section 27-B is under process with the Senate. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA, 2012, and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, if a trade union is the only trade union in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry, in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA), but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industries. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the IRO 2002, IRA 2008 and IRO 2011. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a collective bargaining agent has to bargain for all the workers employed in an establishment and that certifying a union without any strength will not only be unjustified but may also increase chances of pocket unions to become collective bargaining agents. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing union, at least on behalf of its own members. The Committee underlines the importance that the governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

The Committee notes that under sections 23(1) of the IRA, 33(1) of the BIRA and SIRA, 29(1) of the KPIRA and 28(1) of the PIRA, shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 50 workers (25 workers, in the case of the IRA) to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions, etc. (sections 24 of the IRA, 33(5) of the BIRA and SIRA, 29(5) of the KPIRA and 28(5) of the PIRA). Furthermore, sections 25 of the IRA, 34 of the BIRA and SIRA, 30 of the KPIRA and 29 of the PIRA provide for works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers. These sections (and section 26 of the IRA) lists the functions of such councils and further provides that the management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions without the corresponding advice from workers’ representatives, which could be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected by workers employed by the enterprise in question (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent). Finally, sections 28 of the IRA, 35 of the BIRA and SIRA, and 31 of the KPIRA, provide for the joint management boards to look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. (these functions are granted to works councils under the PIRA). The IRA specifies that the worker representatives in such boards are nominated by a collective bargaining agent if there are one or more trade unions at the enterprise, or are chosen from amongst workers of the relevant undertaking, if there is no collective bargaining agent. In the light of the abovementioned provision contained in section 19(1) of the IRA and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, the Committee considers that the position of a single trade union not enlisting over one third of workers employed at the relevant establishment or group of establishments (and therefore, as indicated above, not enjoying collective bargaining rights) may be undermined in practice by other worker representatives represented at the abovementioned bodies, the functions of which have an impact upon the regulation of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the position of such a trade union is not undermined by the use of secret ballot for determination of workers’ representation as shop steward and in works councils and joint management boards; and (2) the IRA provides under section 6 that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the position of such trade unions is not undermined by the existence of other workers’ representatives, particularly when there is no collective bargaining agent. The Committee underlines the importance that the governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which the IRA provides under section 6 that “there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment”. The Committee requests the Government to explain the consequences when there is just one union in an establishment.

Compulsory conciliation. The Committee notes the possibility of compulsory conciliation requested by the law in the collective bargaining process (sections 36 and 37 of the IRA, 45 and 46 of the BIRA and SIRA, 41 and 42 of the KPIRA, 36 and 37 of the PIRA) and refers to the observations made under Convention 87. Moreover, the Committee notes that the conciliator is appointed either directly by the Government (43 of the BIRA and SIRA, 39 of the KPIRA, 35 of the PIRA) or by the Commission whose ten members are appointed by the Government, with only one member representing employers and another one representing trade unions (section 53 of the IRA). The Committee underlines that the system of appointment of the conciliator, as well as the composition of the Commission, could raise questions concerning the confidence of the social parties in the system. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this provision so as to ensure the confidence of the social partners in the conciliation mechanism. The Committee underlines the importance that the governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011, referring to the similar issues as raised in its 2010 communication and in particular, the allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation, non-recognition and blacklisting of trade unions and its members), as well as denial of collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs). Noting that no observations have been provided by the Government thereon, the Committee recalls that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure the application of the Convention in law and in practice. It therefore once again requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC allegations.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Pakistan Workers Confederation (PWC) in a communication dated 21 November 2011 referring to the legislative issues raised by the Committee below.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2008 (which was an interim legislation), had lapsed and that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces. It had further noted that in line with the June 2010 decision of the High Court of Sindh (Karachi), the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969 was back in force. In this respect, the Committee recalled that it had previously commented upon on a number of significant restrictions on the right to organize under the IRO 1969 and expressed the hope that any new legislation, whether at the provincial or national levels would be adopted in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that such instruments would be in full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that the provinces were in the process of adopting their labour laws. The Government also indicates that the Federal Government will ensure through the Council of Common Interests that all provincial laws are in conformity with the Constitution and ratified ILO Conventions. The Committee notes the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA), 2010. The Committee regrets that this legislation appears to restrict the right of workers to organize by excluding several categories of workers from its scope of application, and restricting workers’ collective bargaining rights. The Committee will examine the PIRA 2010 in detail in the framework of the next reporting cycle. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report copies of all other provincial laws regulating industrial relations and trade union rights at the provincial level.

The Committee notes the November 2011 conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) in Case No. 2799 (362nd Report) where the latter noted that a new Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) was promulgated by the President of Pakistan in July 2011 following tripartite consultations. The CFA also noted the Government’s indication that on 12 October 2011, the IRO was introduced in the National Assembly in order to make it into an Act of Parliament.

The Committee notes that the IRO 2011 regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federation of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments which cover more than one province (section 1(2)(3)). It regrets that most of its previous comments on the IRA 2008 have not been addressed by the promulgation of the IRO 2011.

Scope of application of the Convention.

IRO 2011. The Committee notes that by virtue of its section 1(3), the IRO maintains the same exclusion from its scope of application as previously existed under the IRO 2002 and IRA 2008 (agricultural workers, workers of charitable organizations, workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited, etc), as examined in detail by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee recalls that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the IRO so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

With regard to the latter category of workers, the Committee notes that the IRO does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)). The Committee requests the Government to specify and provide examples of categories of workers employed in the administration of the State excluded from the scope of application of the IRO.

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) draft Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and will be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, or a copy thereof if they have been adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. In its report, the Government indicates that the Federal Cabinet at its meeting held on 1 May 2010 approved the repeal of this provision and that the final legislation is under preparation. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Autonomous bodies and corporations. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 2A of the Services Tribunal Act so as to ensure that workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation (PASSCO), etc. could redress their grievances in labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in cases of unfair labour practices committed by the employer, and to provide copy of the amendment once adopted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 2A of the Services Tribunal Act has been repealed and these workers can approach the labour courts in cases mentioned above. The Committee notes with satisfaction, from a copy of the text of the amendment available to it, that section 2A of the Act has been repealed.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that it results from section 19(1) of the IRO that if a trade union is the only trade union at the enterprise, but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the IRO 2002 and IRA 2008. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing union, at least on behalf of its own members.

The Committee notes Chapter IV of the IRO concerning “participation of workers”. It notes, in particular, that under section 23, shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 25 workers to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions, etc. (section 24). Furthermore, section 25 provides for the works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers. Sections 25 lists the functions of such councils and further provides that the management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions, as specified in subsection (5), without the corresponding advice from workers’ representatives, which could be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected by workers employed by the enterprise in question (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent). Finally, section 28 provides for the joint management boards to look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. The worker representatives in such boards are nominated by a collective bargaining agent if there are one or more trade unions at the enterprise, or are chosen from amongst workers of the relevant undertaking, if there is no collective bargaining agent. In the light of the abovementioned provision contained in section 19 of the IRO, the Committee considers that the position of a single trade union not enlisting over one third of workers employed at the relevant establishment or group of establishments (and therefore, as indicated above, not enjoying collective bargaining rights) may be undermined in practice by other worker representatives represented at the above mentioned bodies, the functions of which have an impact upon the regulation of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the position of such trade unions is not undermined by the existence of other workers’ representatives.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 24 August 2010 containing allegations of numerous violations of trade union rights in law, as raised by the Committee below, and in practice. The Committee notes, in particular, the allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by private employers (intimidation, non-recognition and blacklisting of trade unions and its members), as well as denial of collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been commenting on serious discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. At its 2008 session, the Committee took note of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), adopted in November 2008, which amended the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. It further noted that the IRA was an interim law due to lapse until 30 April 2010. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), 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 Conventions it has ratified. 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 upon on a number of significant restrictions on the right to organize under the IRO 1969 and in particular: (1) 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); (2) lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities; and (3) denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors. The Committee expresses the firm hope that any new legislation whether at the provincial or national level will be adopted 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 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 ITUC comments alleging denial of collective bargaining rights in EPZs and the Government’s statement that the draft Rules are in conformity with the Convention, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Rules will be adopted in the very near future. It requests the Government to provide a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Banking sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines for carrying out trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes that the Government had provided 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. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Amendment of section 27B 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.

Autonomous bodies and corporations. The Committee had previously noted the statement of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act had debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation (PASSCO), etc., from seeking redress for their grievances from the labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. In this respect, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that a Bill for amendment of this provision has been moved to the Senate. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that section 2-A of the Services Tribunals Act will be repealed in the near future so as to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to workers concerned. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended legislative text.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that workers of the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) and the trade union existing at the enterprise enjoyed the rights afforded by the Convention in practice. It furthermore requested the Government to provide information on the situation with regard to the determination of a collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes, from the examination of Case No. 2006 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government’s indication that the referendum for selecting a collective bargaining agent had been held in accordance with the directive of the Sindh High Court, and that the KESC labour union was declared the collective bargaining agent (357th Report, paragraph 48).

Finally, the Committee expresses its concern at the situation of trade union rights in the country and urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the application in law and in practice of the rights enshrined in the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in communications dated 2 and 26 August 2009 respectively. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2096, 2399, 2520 (see 353rd Report) and 2229 (see 354th Report), dealing with the same issues.

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been commenting on serious discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. At its 2008 session, the Committee took note of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), adopted in November 2008, which amended the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. It further noted that the IRA was an interim law due to lapse on 30 April 2010. During this period, a tripartite conference would be held to draft a new legislation in consultation with all stakeholders. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the new legislation will take into account the comments set forth.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the IRA excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application:

–      workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ordnance Factory maintained by the federal Government (section 1(3)(a));

–      members of the security staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) (section 1(3)(b));

–      workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d));

–      workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e));

–      members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery, an airport or a seaport (section 1(3)(f));

–      members of the security or fire service staff of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (section 1(3)(g));

–      agricultural workers (section 1(3) read together with 2(ix) and (xiv)); and

–      workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with 2(ix) and (xiv)).

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the new legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the rights enshrined in the Convention.

The Committee notes that persons employed in the administration of the State are excluded from the scope of application of the IRA by virtue of its section 1(3)(b). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new industrial relations legislation will grant to this category of workers collective bargaining rights.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to guarantee the right to organize of workers employed in EPZs, PIAC and in the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that trade unions are free to operate at the KESC and that trade union activities have been restored and a collective bargaining agent was determined through a referendum at the PIAC. With regard to the latter undertaking, the Government indicated that Chief Executive Order No. 6 was repealed. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (EPZs) (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and will be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee hopes that the Rules will guarantee the right to organize to workers in EPZs and requests the Government to provide a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. (a) Sanctions for trade union activities. The Committee had previously requested the Government to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which imposed sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines for carrying out trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes the bill to amend the Banking Companies Ordinance which would repeal section 27-B and the Government’s indication that the bill has been moved to the Senate. The Committee expresses the firm hope that section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance will be repealed in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

(b) Lack of sufficient legislative protection for certain categories of workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities. The Committee had previously noted the statement of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU), according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act had debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation (PASSCO), etc., from seeking redress for their grievances from the labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. In this respect, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to reform section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a Bill for amendment of this provision has been moved to the Senate. The Committee expresses the firm hope that section 2-A of the Services Tribunals Act will be repealed in the near future so as to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to workers concerned. It requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the specific provisions of the legislation which prohibited and penalized acts of interference by employers and their organizations in internal affairs of workers’ organizations. The Committee notes with interest section 17 of the IRA which lists actions constituting unfair labour practices on the part of employer (such as participation in the promotion, formation and activities of a trade union, inducing any person to refrain from becoming or ceasing to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering any advantage, etc.) and section 72(10) of the IRA punishing such acts by fine of up to 30,000 rupees.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that it results from section 24(1) of the IRA that if the trade union is the only trade union at the enterprise and does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar section which existed under the IRO 2002. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee notes sections 31(1) and (2)(b) and 34(1) of the IRA according to which the NIRC may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the federal Government. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that under the new industrial relations legislation, the choice of collective bargaining unit can be made only by the social partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level.

The Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement that while trade unions are free to operate at the KESC, a referendum to determine a collective bargaining agent cannot be held as the management of the KESC filed a writ petition before the High Court appealing the decision of the NIRC granting voting right to contract employees. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the KESC workers and the trade union existing at the enterprise enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in practice. It requests the Government to provide information on the situation with regard to the determination of a collective bargaining agent.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008, which concern matters raised in the Committee’s previous observation and contain allegations of violations of collective bargaining rights, weak labour law enforcement by the Government, and cases of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon, as well as on the comments sent by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC) on 12 July 2006, also referring to examples of violations of the Convention in law and in practice.

The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2229 (see 349th Report) and 2399 (see 344th and 350th Reports), dealing with similar issues.

The Committee recalls that the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, after noting the long-standing nature and the seriousness of the discrepancies between the Convention and national law, had requested the Government, in June 2006, to send a detailed report containing full information on all issues raised, as well as draft texts concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the discussion in the Conference Committee, which took place in June 2006, in which the Government’s representative stated that the Government was working towards resolving these outstanding problems in the near future, in cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations.

The Committee recalls that its previous observations concerned the need to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act, amending the IRO 2002, was adopted in November 2008 and that it will be an interim law, which will lapse on 30 April 2010. During this period, a tripartite conference will be held to draft new legislation in consultation with all stakeholders. The Committee expresses the hope that the new legislation will take into account its previous comments with regard to the IRO 2002.

Scope of application of the Convention. (a) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that EPZ Employment Relations Rules had been prepared in response to the concerns raised regarding the denial of labour rights in this sector and that these draft rules had been sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights for review and would be provided to the Committee once the process was completed. Hoping that, in the very near future, the new rules will provide EPZ workers with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to send a copy of these rules as soon as they are adopted.

(b) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of worker. The Committee expresses the hope that the new legislation will guarantee the right to organize of the following categories of worker employed in the following establishments or industries:

–           Workers employed in installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ministry of Defence railway lines; the manufacturing establishment of the armed forces; the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport, persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, as well as workers of charitable organizations;

–           workers in Pakistan International Airlines (PIAC);

–           workers in the agricultural sector;

–           workers employed in the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC).

The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that after promulgation of the IRO 2002, the KESC workers were entitled to the right of association. However, following an application filed by the Trade Union of the KESC, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) had issued an order to the effect that the IRO was not applicable to the KESC. The Trade Union of the KESC had appealed to the bench of the NIRC and, according to the Government, the ban on KESC trade union activities had been lifted. The NIRC had further considered a dispute regarding registration of a labour union in the KESC and had ordered that a referendum be held to prepare for the determination of a collective bargaining agent. Following the referendum, labour unions should have been fully restored in the KESC. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the KESC workers and the trade union existing in the enterprise enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in practice and once again requests the Government to indicate the situation including the decision taken by the NIRC on the registration of a labour union and on the determination of a collective bargaining agent.

Article 1 of the Convention. (a) Sanctions for trade union activities. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s statement that measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 – according to which imprisonment and/or fines were imposed in cases which include the use of bank resources (such as telephones) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, pressure tactics, etc. – were under way. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal these restrictions in the near future and requests the Government to indicate any developments in this respect.

(b) Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities. The Committee had previously noted the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions’ (APFTU) statement, according to which the newly-imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act had debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation (PASSCO), etc., from seeking redress for their grievances from the labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the NIRC in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. In this respect, the Committee had noted the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee in June 2006 that measures to review and ultimately reform section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act were under way. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to reform section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act and to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to the workers concerned.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that workers and employers enjoy adequate protection against any act of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment. According to the Government, this principle had been applied by means of legislation under which the field formation of the Directorate of Labour Welfare and the Minimum Wages Board had been established, and the workers authorized to form a trade union and determine a collective bargaining agent for executing agreements between the employers and the workers. The Committee once again requests the Government to state in its next report the specific provisions of the legislation which prohibit and penalize acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. With reference to the new Industrial Relations legislation to be adopted, the Committee expects that it will be in full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and in particular that it will ensure that:

–      if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are not denied to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members;

–      the three-year time span, within which no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made once a registered trade union has been certified as the collective bargaining agent, is reduced to a more reasonable period or that the challenge of the most representative organization could take place in advance of the expiration of the applicable collective agreement;

–      the choice of collective bargaining unit may only be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new legislation once it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee regrets that the report does not cover all the pending points, despite the fact that the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, after noting the long-standing nature and the seriousness of the discrepancies between the Convention and national law, had requested the Government, in June 2006, to send a detailed report containing full information on all issues raised, as well as draft texts concerning the application of the Convention.

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee, in which two Government representatives of Pakistan acknowledged that Pakistan went through a difficult period of economic fragility which had an adverse impact on unemployment and working conditions but, that the economy had now been stabilized through various policies including steps to reform the legislation, following the Committee’s 2005 observation; the Government is making a strong commitment to put in place a good industrial relations system and that steps taken in that direction were being reinforced; bodies for tripartite consultation have been established; and a special committee on labour matters has been set up. The Committee also notes that the Government is working towards resolving outstanding problems in the near future, while at the same time ensuring that measures taken would bring about lasting changes and is looking forward to further cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, as well as the ILO.

The Committee recalls that the pending questions, detailed in its previous observations, refer to:

1. Scope of application of the Convention. (a) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that the relevant ministry and the EPZ authority were devising rules for workers in the EPZs to be in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Export Processing Zone Employment Relations Rules had been prepared in response to the concerns raised regarding the denial of labour rights in this sector. These draft rules have been sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights for review and will be provided to the Committee once the process is completed. Hoping that, in the very near future, the new rules will provide the EPZ workers with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the Committee requests again the Government to send the copy of these rules as soon as adopted.

(b) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of workers. (i) The Committee had previously noted that the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, excluded from its scope workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ministry of Defence Railway Lines; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally-unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport (section 1(4)) and persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (section 2(xxx)), as well as workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii)). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that it has sent the draft amendments of the IRO to the Prime Minister’s secretariat for approval before their submission to Parliament. The amendments would remove certain categories of worker from section 1(4) and thus restore freedom of association and collective bargaining rights to certain categories of worker. The Committee notes that, at the Conference Committee, a Government representative stated that the Amendment Bill, which has been drafted following tripartite consultations, has been submitted to the Pakistani Cabinet. Hoping that the new amendments will afford the right to organize to the abovementioned categories of workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft amendments.

(ii) In respect of restrictions imposed on the rights of workers employed in the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC), the Committee noted that, according to the Government, after promulgation of the IRO, the KESC workers were entitled to the right of association. However, following an application filed by the Trade Union of the KESC, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) issued an order to the effect that the IRO was not applicable to the KESC. The Trade Union of the KESC appealed to the bench of the NIRC and the matter was still pending. The Committee notes that, at the Conference Committee, a Government representative was informed of the lifting of the ban on the KESC trade union activities. However, according to the Government, a dispute regarding registration of the labour union in the KESC was considered by the NIRC, which ordered that a referendum be held to prepare for the determination of a collective bargaining agent. The NIRC was making preparations for the referendum, following which labour unions would be fully restored in the KESC. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the KESC workers and the trade union existing in the enterprise enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in practice and requests the Government to keep it informed of the situation including the decision taken by the NIRC on the registration of a labour union and on the determination of a collective bargaining agent.

(iii) With respect to Chief Executive’s Order No. 6, which abolished trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines (PIAC) and suspended all the existing collective agreements, the Committee noted that the Government reiterated that the case of the trade unions affected by the Order was still pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Committee once again recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention. While taking note that the case is still pending before the court, in view of the fact that Order No. 6 was issued by the Chief Executive and that it is in contradiction with the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take all necessary measures to repeal the Order and to restore full trade union rights to the PIAC workers. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(iv) Regarding the rights afforded by the Convention to workers in the agricultural sector, the Committee notes that, at the Conference Committee, the Government representative underscored that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and provincial governments had been advised to help streamline the work and activities of rural workers’ organizations in keeping with the Governments’ obligations under the Convention and that the Constitution of Pakistan provided clear guarantees to form or join “associations” to all Pakistani citizens, including rural workers. In its report, the Government indicates that no trade union of agriculture workers has been registered during the period under review but that there are numerous agriculture workers’ associations in place in the country to safeguard their interests. The Committee requests the Government to ensure, in a legal text concerning trade unions, that this category of workers enjoys freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in law and in practice, as required by the Convention, and to provide it with the advice given to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and provincial governments in this regard.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. (a) Sanctions for trade union activities. The Committee noted the Government’s statement that, while section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 – according to which imprisonment and/or fines are imposed in cases which include the use of bank resources (such as telephones) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, pressure tactics, etc. – does not violate rights guaranteed under the Convention, the Ministry of Labour was consulting with the ministries concerned regarding the amendment to section 27-B. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 were under way. While noting that the measures taken to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 are under way, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal these restrictions in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(b) Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (section 25-A of the IRO of 1969). The Committee had previously noted the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions’ (APFTU) statement, according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act has debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Supply Corporation (PASSCO), etc., from seeking redress for their grievances from the labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and the NIRC in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the issues related to provision 2-A had been addressed and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. The Committee notes that, at the Conference Committee, the Government representative stated that measures to review and ultimately reform section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act were under way. The Government also refers to the fact that workers can file a petition of “Unfair Labour Practice” to the Labour Courts under sections 63 and 65 of the Ordinance. Noting that measures to review and ultimately reform section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act are under way, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of these measures and ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to these workers.

3. Article 2 (protection against acts of interference). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that workers and employers enjoy adequate protection against any act of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment. This principle has been applied by means of legislation under which the field formation of the Directorate of Labour Welfare and the Minimum Wages Board have been established and the workers are authorized to form a trade union and determine a collective bargaining agent for executing agreements between the employers and the workers. The Committee once again requests the Government to state in its next report the specific provisions of the legislation which prohibit and penalize acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each others affairs.

4. Article 4 (collective bargaining). The Committee once again requests the Government to amend the following sections of the IRO, 2002, and keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect:

(i)  section 20, from which it results that if the trade union is the only trade union at the enterprise and does not have at least one-third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members;

(ii)    section 20(11) according to which no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made for a period of three years once a registered trade union has been certified as the collective bargaining agent. The Committee requests the Government to ensure the possibility for another union to make appropriate representations to the competent authority and to the employer regarding the recognition of this union for collective bargaining purposes, if the most representative union which enjoys exclusive bargaining rights seems to have lost its majority;

(iii) section 54 according to which the NIRC may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the federal Government. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the choice of collective bargaining unit may only be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level.

The Committee observes that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) sent comments on the application of the Convention on 12 July 2006. It observes that, if most of these comments concern issues that have already been raised by the Committee in previous observations, the ICFTU gives new examples of violations of the Convention, including several cases of anti-union dismissals in five enterprises and the massive reprisals and arrest of over 600 workers during a collective action. The Committee requests that the Government transmit its observations in this regard.

The Committee expresses the hope that the initiatives taken by the Government to amend the national legislation will be transposed without delay in real legislative reforms in full conformity with the Convention and, given the Government’s statement according to which it is looking forward to further cooperation with the ILO, recalls that the technical assistance of the ILO is at its disposal. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to comply with the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee further notes the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in communications dated 14 May and 31 August 2005, respectively, concerning the application of the Convention. The comments of both unions concern legislative issues raised in the previous observation of the Committee as well as the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. The Committee takes note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2229.

1. Scope of application of the Convention. (a) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the relevant ministry and the EPZ authority is devising the Service Regulations for the workers in the EPZs to be in conformity with the Convention. Hoping that, in the very near future, the Regulations will provide the EPZ workers with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to send the copy of the Regulations as soon as they are adopted.

(b) Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of workers. (i) The Committee had previously noted that the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002 excluded from its scope workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ministry of Defence Railway Lines; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport (section 1(4)) and persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (section 2(xxx)), as well as workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii)). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has sent the draft amendments of the IRO to the Prime Minister’s secretariat for approval before their submission to Parliament. The amendments would remove certain categories of workers from section 1(4) and thus restore freedom of association and collective bargaining rights to certain categories of workers. Hoping that the new amendments will afford the right to organize to the abovementioned categories of workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft amendments so that it may examine their conformity with the Convention.

(ii) In respect of restrictions imposed on the rights of workers employed in the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC), the Committee notes that according to the Government, after promulgation of the IRO, the KESC workers were entitled to the right of association. However, following an application filed by the Trade Union of the KESC, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) issued an order to the effect that the IRO was not applicable to the KESC. The Trade Union of the KESC appealed to the bench of the NIRC and the matter was still pending. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the KESC workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in practice and requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this respect. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision taken by the bench of the NIRC.

(iii) With respect to Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 which abolished trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines (PIAC) and suspended all the existing collective agreements, noting that the Government reiterates that the case of the trade unions affected by the Order was still pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Committee once again recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention. While taking note that the case is still pending before the court, in view of the fact that Order No. 6 was issued by the Chief Executive, the Committee once again requests the Government to take all necessary measures to repeal the Order and to restore full trade union rights to the PIAC workers. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(iv) Noting that no information was provided by the Government with regard to the rights afforded by the Convention to workers in the agricultural sector, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether this category of workers enjoys freedom of association and collective bargaining rights and, if this is not the case, to take the necessary legislative measures to guarantee this right.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. (a) Sanctions for trade union activities. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that while section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 - according to which imprisonment and/or fines are imposed in cases which include the use of bank resources (telephone, etc.) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, pressure tactics, etc. - does not violate rights guaranteed under the Convention, the Ministry of Labour was consulting with the ministries concerned regarding the amendment of section 27-B. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal these restrictions in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(b) Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (section 25-A of the IRO of 1969). The Committee had previously noted the APFTU’s statement, according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act has debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as WAPDA, railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, PASSCO, etc., from seeking redress for their grievances from the labour courts, labour appellate tribunals and NIRC in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that the issues related to provision 2-A had been addressed and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. In view of the fact that no further information was provided by the Government in its recent report, the Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in order to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to these workers.

3. Article 2. The Committee once again requests the Government to state in its next report whether the legislation prohibits and penalizes acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs and to indicate the relevant provisions.

4. Article 4. The Committee once again requests the Government to amend the following sections of the IRO 2002 and keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect:

(i)  section 20, from which it results that if the trade union, which is the only trade union at the enterprise, does not have at least one-third of employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as a collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members;

(ii)  section 20(11) according to which no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made for a period of three years once a registered trade union has been certified as collective bargaining agent. The Committee requests the Government to ensure the possibility for another union to make appropriate representations to the competent authority and to the employer regarding the recognition of this union for collective bargaining purposes if the most representative union which enjoys exclusive bargaining rights, seems to have lost its majority;

(iii)  section 54 according to which the NIRC may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the federal government. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the choice of collective bargaining unit may only be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to state in its next report whether the legislation prohibits and penalizes acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs and to indicate the relevant provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which came to replace the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The Committee also notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003. It further notes the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in a communication dated 9 July 2003 concerning the application of the Convention. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2229 (March 2003) and 2242 (November 2003).

With respect to its previous comments, the Committee notes the following:

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZ). The Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee of the Application of Standards to the effect that this question was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industries, which had exempted the EPZ from the application of labour laws. However, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Industries with a view to withdrawing the exemption and an extensive dialogue was under way. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that EPZ workers are very soon provided with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention.

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of workers. The Committee had previously noted that other categories of workers were also deprived of the rights provided for in the Convention (public servants of grade 16 or above, public servants in forestry, railways, hospital workers, postal service employees and civil aviation employees). The Committee notes that the new IRO excludes from its scope workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including Ministry of Defence railway lines; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport (section 1(4)) and persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (section 2(xxx), as well as workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii)). The Committee further notes the APFTU’s statement to the effect that the Government has also imposed restrictions on rights of workers employed in Karachi Electric Supply Company and in the agricultural sector. Moreover, the Committee understands that Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 abolished trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines and suspended all the existing collective agreements. The Committee recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures in order to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention.

-  Sanctions for trade union activities. As concerns section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, according to which imprisonment and/or fines are imposed in case of the use of bank facilities (telephone, etc.) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, the Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards to the effect that a review of this provision was under way. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal this section in the near future.

-  Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (section 25-A of the IRO of 1969). The Committee notes that the new IRO provides for a possibility of reinstatement or compensation in the case of the termination of services of a workman which is held to be wrongful and that during an industrial dispute, the National Industrial Relations Commission can grant interim relief to workers who have been dismissed, discharged, removed from employment, transferred or injured in respect of his or her employment due to trade union activities. The Committee notes the APFTU’s statement, according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act has debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as WAPDA, railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, PASSCO, etc. from seeking redress for their grievances from the Labour Courts, Labour Appellate Tribunals and National Industrial Relations Commission in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. The Committee notes from the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that, in light of the tripartite agreement on the new labour policy, the issues related to provision 2-A were being addressed and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. The Government further stated that it was committed to finding a solution reflecting the demands of all stakeholders and the Committee’s concerns. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in order to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to these workers.

-  Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors, previously contained in sections 38-A to 38-I of the IRO. The Committee notes that those sections are not reproduced in the new IRO.

As concerns the IRO of 2002, the Committee would like to point out the following discrepancies with Article 4 of the Convention:

-  The Committee notes that it results from section 20 that if the trade union, which is the only trade union at the enterprise, does not have at least one-third of employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee recalls in this respect that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention.

-  The Committee also notes that according to section 20(11), no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made for a period of three years once a registered trade union has been certified as collective bargaining agent. In this respect, the Committee recalls that where the most representative union which, enjoying exclusive bargaining rights, seems to have lost its majority, it should be possible to another union to make appropriate representations to the competent authority and to the employer regarding the recognition of this union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to amend the IRO accordingly and keep it informed in this respect.

-  The Committee further notes that according to section 54, the National Industrial Commission may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the Federal Government. The Committee recalls in this respect that the choice of collective bargaining unit should normally be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level, and requests the Government to amend its legislation accordingly.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to state in its next report whether the legislation prohibits and penalizes acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs and to indicate the relevant provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee notes the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which came to replace the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The Committee also notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003. It further notes the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in a communication dated 9 July 2003 concerning the application of the Convention. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2229 (March 2003) and 2242 (November 2003).

With respect to its previous comments, the Committee notes the following:

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZ). The Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee of the Application of Standards to the effect that this question was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industries, which had exempted the EPZ from the application of labour laws. However, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Industries with a view to withdrawing the exemption and an extensive dialogue was under way. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that EPZ workers are very soon provided with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention.

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of workers. The Committee had previously noted that other categories of workers were also deprived of the rights provided for in the Convention (public servants of grade 16 or above, public servants in forestry, railways, hospital workers, postal service employees and civil aviation employees). The Committee notes that the new IRO excludes from its scope workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including Ministry of Defence railway lines; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport (section 1(4)) and persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (section 2(xxx), as well as workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii)). The Committee further notes the APFTU’s statement to the effect that the Government has also imposed restrictions on rights of workers employed in Karachi Electric Supply Company and in the agricultural sector. Moreover, the Committee understands that Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 abolished trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines and suspended all the existing collective agreements. The Committee recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures in order to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention.

-  Sanctions for trade union activities. As concerns section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, according to which imprisonment and/or fines are imposed in case of the use of bank facilities (telephone, etc.) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, the Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards to the effect that a review of this provision was under way. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal this section in the near future.

-  Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (section 25-A of the IRO of 1969). The Committee notes that the new IRO provides for a possibility of reinstatement or compensation in the case of the termination of services of a workman which is held to be wrongful and that during an industrial dispute, the National Industrial Relations Commission can grant interim relief to workers who have been dismissed, discharged, removed from employment, transferred or injured in respect of his or her employment due to trade union activities. The Committee notes the APFTU’s statement, according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act has debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as WAPDA, railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, PASSCO, etc. from seeking redress for their grievances from the Labour Courts, Labour Appellate Tribunals and National Industrial Relations Commission in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. The Committee notes from the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that, in light of the tripartite agreement on the new labour policy, the issues related to provision 2-A were being addressed and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. The Government further stated that it was committed to finding a solution reflecting the demands of all stakeholders and the Committee’s concerns. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in order to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to these workers.

-  Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors, previously contained in sections 38-A to 38-I of the IRO. The Committee notes that those sections are not reproduced in the new IRO.

As concerns the IRO of 2002, the Committee would like to point out the following discrepancies with Article 4 of the Convention:

-  The Committee notes that it results from section 20 that if the trade union, which is the only trade union at the enterprise, does not have at least one-third of employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee recalls in this respect that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention.

-  The Committee also notes that according to section 20(11), no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made for a period of three years once a registered trade union has been certified as collective bargaining agent. In this respect, the Committee recalls that where the most representative union which, enjoying exclusive bargaining rights, seems to have lost its majority, it should be possible to another union to make appropriate representations to the competent authority and to the employer regarding the recognition of this union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to amend the IRO accordingly and keep it informed in this respect.

-  The Committee further notes that according to section 54, the National Industrial Commission may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the Federal Government. The Committee recalls in this respect that the choice of collective bargaining unit should normally be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level, and requests the Government to amend its legislation accordingly.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on measures taken or envisaged in respect of all of the abovementioned points.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee had noted the Government’s communication dated 20 October 2001 in reply to the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) regarding the prohibition or the limitations of trade union and collective bargaining rights in several industries, in which the Government had indicated that employees of autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies and corporations (i.e. banks, railways, WAPDA,   telecommunications and other state enterprises) are not civil servants within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act of 1973, as the terms and conditions of their service are not regulated by the Act. The Government had also indicated that the employees of the abovementioned organizations were declared civil servants for the limited purpose of enabling them to file appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal regarding penalties imposed in disciplinary matters. The Committee recalls that these categories of workers should enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention and requests the Government to take appropriate measures in this respect. The Committee notes the observations made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 18 September 2002 and by the APFTU dated 11 November 2002 and asks the Government to reply thereto. The Committee notes also the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2069 (November 2001).

The Committee’s other comments referred to the serious discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points.

-  Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors (sections 38-A to 38-I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969). The Committee had noted that other categories of workers are also deprived of the rights provided for in the Convention (public servants of grade 16 or above, public servants in forestry, railways, hospital workers, postal service employees and civil aviation employees).

The Government states that it will provide information on the progress of work of the Commission on banking law review which will examine the questions raised by the Committee. The Committee recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention and asks again the Government to take measures in order to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention.

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980).

The Government had indicated that it has decided to authorize the Export Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) to participate in the preparation of the labour laws, and that draft laws were being finalized. The Government also had indicated that these laws would meet the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide it with a copy of the draft legislation and to ensure that these workers are very soon provided with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention.

-  Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (the judgement of the Supreme Court of 11 August 1994 restricts the right to judicial recourse in case of dismissal when it is not connected with an industrial dispute, thus impeding the possibility of reinstatement provided for under section 25-A of the IRO).

The Government simply states in its report that the aggrieved party may go to any other court established for this purpose. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent enough information in this respect and asks it to take the necessary measures to guarantee an adequate protection.

-  Imprisonment, and/or fines in case of use of bank facilities (telephone, etc.) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours (section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as modified in 1997). The Committee requests the Government to repeal this provision.

-  Restricted scope of the legislation of trade union rights (IRO, Civil Servants Act, etc.). The Committee refers to the comments made under Convention No. 87.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It also notes the Government’s communication dated 20 October 2001 in reply to the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) regarding the prohibition or the limitations of trade union and collective bargaining rights in several industries, in which the Government indicates that employees of autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies and corporations (i.e. banks, railways, WAPDA, telecommunications and other state enterprises) are not civil servants within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act of 1973, as the terms and conditions of their service are not regulated by the Act. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the employees of the abovementioned organizations were declared civil servants for the limited purpose of enabling them to file appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal regarding penalties imposed in disciplinary matters. The Committee also notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 18 September 2001 and asks the Government to reply thereto.

The Committee’s previous comments referred to the serious discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-  Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors (sections 38-A to 38-I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969). The Committee notes that other categories of workers are also deprived of the rights provided for in the Convention (public servants of grade 16 or above, public servants in forestry and railways, hospital workers, postal service employees, civil aviation employees).

The Government states that these services are connected with security and defence of the country. The Committee recalls that only armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention and asks the Government to take measures in order to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention.

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980).

The Government indicates in its report that it has decided to authorize the Export Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) to frame the labour laws, and that draft laws are being finalized. The Government also indicates that these laws will meet the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the draft legislation and to ensure that these workers are very soon provided with all the guarantees enshrined in the Convention.

-  Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (the judgement of the Supreme Court of 11 August 1994 restricts the right to judicial recourse in case of dismissal when it is not connected with an industrial dispute thus impeding the possibility of reinstatement provided for under section 25-A of the IRO).

The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent information in this respect and asks it to take the necessary measures to guarantee adequate protection.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in several communications which relate to the prohibition or the limitations of trade union and collective bargaining rights in several industries. The Committee asks the Government to reply to the comments made by the APFTU. The Committee also notes the interim conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2006 (see 318th Report of the Committee, paragraphs 324-352, approved by the Governing Body at its November 1999 session).

The Committee's previous comments referred to serious discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-- denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors (sections 38-A to 38-I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969);

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance 1980); and

-- lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (the judgement of the Supreme Court of 11 August 1994 restricts the right to judicial recourse in case of dismissal when it is not connected with an industrial dispute thus impeding the possibility of reinstatement provided for under section 25-A of the IRO).

The Committee notes that in its present report the Government states that a Commission for consolidation, simplification, and rationalization of labour laws has been set up. This Commission will look at all discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention.

The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the labour legislation in the very near future so as to bring the latter into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. In preparing such amendments, the Committee would strongly encourage the Government to take into consideration the recommendations of the direct contacts mission which took place in January 1994, as well as those of the tripartite Task Force on Labour which drafted its report in July 1994. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard in its next report.

Finally, the Committee refers the Government to the comments made under Convention No. 87 concerning certain branches of activity which have been excluded from the Industrial Relations Ordinance and hence from the right to bargain collectively.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports and the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Pakistan Council (ICFTU-PC).

The Committee's previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-- Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969).

-- Denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance 1980).

-- Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (the judgement of the Supreme Court of 11 August 1994 restricts the right to judicial recourse in case of dismissal when it is not connected with an industrial dispute thus impeding the possibility of reinstatement provided for under section 25-A of the IRO).

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government merely confines itself to repeating information it had already provided the previous year on the above points. The Committee notes however that in its subsequent report, the Government indicates that all labour laws are currently being reviewed and that in this respect, due consideration will be given to the Committee's previous observations concerning this Convention. The Government points out none the less that amending labour legislation is a time-consuming exercise involving wide-ranging consultations with the social partners.

The Committee would once again remind the Government that the above discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention, which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years, constitute serious violations of the Convention which was ratified in 1952. The Committee therefore would once again request the Government to ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the labour legislation in the very near future so as to bring the latter into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. In preparing such amendments the Committee would strongly encourage the Government to take into consideration the recommendations of the direct contacts mission which took place in January 1994, as well as those of the tripartite Task Force on Labour which drafted its report in July 1994. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made on this in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee's previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- Limitations on free collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969) contrary to Article 4 of the Convention.

- Denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance 1980).

- Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities.

1. The Government reiterates in its report that the procedure used by the Wage Commission for banks and financial institutions is intended to provide workers with the opportunity to bargain with the Commission without any hesitation instead of bargaining directly with the employer. In addition, the Government merely reiterates its previous statement to the effect that workers allowed to bargain freely with their employers form their own unions and put one impediment after another in the shape of nagging demands on a recurring basis. They also damage discipline and efficiency since they have too many office- bearers at an overwhelming majority of the operational units. According to the Government, this is aggravated by the fact that officers can also form associations under the law and that the branch managers and officers at grade-1 level are members and so have divided loyalties leaning more towards the interests of their associations. So, discipline amongst the staff and overall efficiency is deteriorating.

Moreover, the Government reiterates its view that, in institutions which rely on the deposits of the general public, to allow the right of collective bargaining would be tantamount to putting into jeopardy the trust given by individual depositors to banks and other financial institutions. The Government further indicates that the Wage Commission has recommended that staff unions of banks and financial institutions should not be allowed to negotiate wages and other fringe benefits and conditions of service as they are reviewed every three years by an independent Wage Commission set up by the Government. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Government indicates that it would not be advisable to change the status quo.

The Government states once again that the Wage Commission pronounces its awards after having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of socio-economic importance and after giving patient hearings to the representatives of the concerned parties in order to achieve a consensus on all the issues raised by either party and the matters otherwise considered by the Commission. The Wage Commission issued its 7th Wage Award, to be effective from 1 January 1993, and has also given its views on staff union/management relations. This Award by the Wage Commission is not applicable, however, to banks and financial institutions in the private sector.

The Committee must once again recall that Article 4 provides that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations. It has indicated that, in the first instance, voluntary collective bargaining should be encouraged between the parties. Any external administrative structure established should be referred to only when both parties agree and its purpose should be that of facilitating the conclusion of a collective agreement. It should not serve to impose a ceiling.

With regard to the Government's statement that this procedure used by the Wage Commission is not applicable to banks and financial institutions in the private sector, the Committee must stress once again that Article 6 of the Convention only allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope. The distinction must therefore be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention, and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their employment conditions, including wages. In this connection, the Committee emphasizes that the mere fact that public servants are white-collar employees is not in itself conclusive of their qualification as employees "engaged in the administration of the State"; if this were the case, Convention No. 98 would be deprived of much of its scope (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paras. 200, 261 and 262).

The Committee must therefore once again ask the Government to reconsider the question of collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector so as to ensure the agreement of both parties to any settlement of terms and conditions of employment. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will be able to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report and would once again ask the Government to supply a copy of the award of the Wage Commission which is actually in force.

2. As regards the denial of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively for workers in export processing zones (EPZs), the Government reiterates its previous statement that the benefits that accrue to these workers are better than those provided to other workers. Moreover, there is only one EPZ that has been established in Karachi at present which employs fewer than 6,000 workers, 80 per cent of whom are women. Since the cultural climate in Pakistan is not in favour of unionization of female workers due to social taboos, those workers do not demand that trade union rights under the IRO, be restored to them. There is, however, no ban on their forming any association. The Government adds that the earlier report of the tripartite Task Force recommending that labour laws apply throughout the entire country without discrimination is under active consideration by the Cabinet Committee. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the provisions of this Convention will be applied to EPZs and requests the Government to inform it of the Cabinet Committee's decision in this regard in its next report.

3. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided its observations to the Committee's previous comments on a Supreme Court decision dated 11 August 1994 which severely restricts the right to judicial recourse of dismissed workers under section 25A of the IRO. In this judgement, the Supreme Court determined that "a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment is not a worker (as defined by the IRO) unless his dismissal, discharge, etc., had connection with or was in consequence of an industrial dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, etc., had led to such a dispute". The Supreme Court went on to hold that such persons were therefore not entitled to the remedy provided for under section 25A of the IRO.

The Committee would once again remind the Government that, in freely ratifying this Convention, it had undertaken, in accordance with Article 1(2)(b) to ensure the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities. The above court decision would appear to have the effect of blocking any legal recourse to workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities if there is no industrial dispute pending or raised over such dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the appropriate provisions of the IRO are amended so that dismissed workers have the possibility of recourse to legal proceedings to protect themselves against anti-union dismissals whether or not an industrial dispute is raised or pending over such dismissals. It further requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this regard.

More generally, the Committee regrets to note that despite the undertaking of a direct contacts mission between a representative of the Director-General and the Government in January 1994, as well as the establishment of a tripartite Task Force on Labour which drew up recommendations very similar to those of the mission on amendments to be made to the legislation, the Government has still not taken the appropriate steps to give effect to the above-mentioned recommendations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that substantial progress is made in amending national legislation and practice concerning the issues raised by the Committee in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information in the Government's report as well as the communication from the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) dated 29 August 1995.

The Committee's previous observations referred to inconsistencies between the national legislation and the following Articles of the Convention:

- Article 4 of the Convention. Limitations on free collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969); and

- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980).

1. As in its previous reports, it is stated in the Government's report that the procedure used by the Wage Commission for banks and financial institutions is intended to provide workers with the opportunity to bargain with the Commission without any hesitations instead of bargaining directly with the employer. The Government adds that workers allowed to bargain freely with their employers not only form their unions and put one impediment after the other in the shape of nagging demands on a recurring basis, but also pollute discipline and the working environment in the branches of activity as they have too many office bearers at an overwhelming majority in the operational units. According to the Government, this is aggravated by the fact that officers can also form associations under the law and that the branch managers and officers at grade-1 level are members with their loyalties divided more towards the interests of their associations. Thus, discipline amongst the staff and the overall efficiency is deteriorating.

The Government states that the Wage Commission pronounces its awards after having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of socio-economic importance and giving patient hearings to the representatives of the concerned parties in order to achieve a consensus on all the issues raised by either party and the matters otherwise considered by the Commission. The Wage Commission issued its 7th Wage Award last year, to be effective from 1 January 1993, and has also given its views on staff union/management relations.

The Committee must once again recall that Article 4 provides that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations. It has indicated that, in the first instance, voluntary collective bargaining should be encouraged between the parties. Any external administrative structure established should be referred to only when both parties agree and its purpose should be that of facilitating the conclusion of a collective agreement. The Committee, therefore, must once again request the Government to reconsider the question of collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector so as to ensure that both parties agree to any settlement in respect of the terms and conditions of employment. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will be able to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report and would ask the Government to supply a copy of the award of the Wage Commission which is actually in force.

2. As regards the denial of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively for workers in export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee notes the comments made by the Government in its report under Convention No. 87. The Committee had noted in its previous comments that the report of the tripartite Task Force on Labour had recommended that labour laws apply throughout the entire country without discrimination. In its latest report, the Government has indicated that the Task Force report is under active consideration by the Cabinet Committee. Given that the Task Force report was drafted in July 1994, the Committee expresses the firm hope that action will be taken on its recommendations in the very near future and that it will include measures to ensure that the provisions of this Convention are applied to EPZs. It requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

3. The Committee notes that the communication of the PNFTU refers to a Supreme Court decision dated 11 August 1994 which severely restricts the right to judicial recourse of dismissed workers under section 25A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. In this judgement, the Supreme Court determines that "a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment is not a worker (as defined by the IRO) unless his dismissal, discharge, etc., had connection with or was in consequence of an industrial dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, etc., had led to such a dispute". The Supreme Court went on to hold that such persons were therefore not entitled to the remedy provided in section 25A of the IRO.

The Committee would recall to the Government that, in freely ratifying this Convention, it has undertaken to ensure the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities, in accordance with Article 1(2)(b). The above court decision would appear to have the effect of blocking any legal recourse to dismissed workers, including those who have been dismissed for their trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO in order to ensure that dismissed workers have the right to appeal to legal proceedings so as to protect them from anti-union dismissals.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report as well as the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1726 (294th Report, paragraphs 372-419, approved by the Governing Body in June 1994) and Case No. 1771 (295th Report, paragraphs 482-501, approved by the Governing Body in November 1994).

The Committee's previous observations referred to inconsistencies between the national legislation and the following Articles of the Convention:

-- Article 4 of the Convention. Limitations on free collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969); and

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980).

1. The Government reiterates its earlier statement concerning the procedure used by the Wage Commission for banks and financial institutions intended to provide workers the opportunity to bargain with the Commission. The Government is of the view that, in the institutions which rely on the deposits of the general public, to allow the right of collective bargaining would be tantamount to putting into jeopardy the trust given by the individual depositors to the bank and other financial institutions. The Government further indicates that the Wage Commission has recommended that staff unions of banks and financial institutions should not be allowed to negotiate concerning wages and other fringe benefits and conditions of service as they are reviewed every three years by an independent Wage Commission set up by the Government. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Government indicates that it would not be advisable to change the status quo. It would accept, however, that negotiation be allowed in respect of monitoring implementation of awards and other minor matters such as transfer and posting, and the creation of proper working conditions.

While noting these explanations, the Committee would recall that Article 4 provides that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations. Whatever the kind of machinery used, its first objective should be to encourage by all possible means free and voluntary collective bargaining between the parties, allowing them the greatest possible autonomy, while establishing a legal framework and an administrative structure to which they may have recourse, on a voluntary basis and by mutual agreement, to facilitate the conclusion of a collective agreement. (See 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 247.) The Committee would, therefore, once again request the Government to reconsider the matter and to indicate, in its next report, any developments in this regard.

2. As regards the denial of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively for workers in export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee notes the comments made by the Government in its report under Convention No. 87. It further notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1726 (294th Report, June 1994) concerning the non-application of labour legislation to EPZs and its recommendation that the 1992 Finance Act, the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and the Export Processing Zones Authority (Control of Employment) Rules be amended to ensure the right to organize and to bargain collectively for workers in these zones. It notes with interest the recommendation in the preliminary report of the tripartite Task Force on Labour that it would be desirable to apply labour laws uniformly without discrimination to all organizations. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the provisions of this Convention are applied to EPZs and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report of 2 October 1992 and of several communications from the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) dated 8 July 1992 and 11 January and 11 October 1993. It further notes the discussions in the Conference Committee in 1992 and 1993, and that a direct contacts mission took place from 15 to 22 January 1994, between a representative of the Director-General and the Government.

The Committee's previous observations referred to inconsistencies between the national legislation and various Articles of the Convention:

- Article 4 of the Convention, limitations on free collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969); and

- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980) and employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956).

The Committee takes note of the report of the direct contacts mission, during which all these issues were discussed with the authorities and the various workers' and employers' organizations. It further notes that the Government expressed its continued interest in receiving technical assistance from the Office on these matters.

The Committee also notes that a tripartite task force was established recently, with a wide mandate on labour and industrial relations issues. The Committee hopes that this initiative, together with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, will soon lead to substantial progress on the above-mentioned issues, for which the Office may provide technical assistance.

REQUESTS The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994. #REPORT_DATE:30:06:1994

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's report enclosing the Award of the Sixth Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions dated September 1990.

The Committee's previous observations referred to inconsistencies between the national legislation and various Articles of the Convention:

- Article 4, limitations on free collective bargaining in the banking and financial sector (sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969); and

- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980) and employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956).

1. The Government argues that the Wage Commission set up in the bank and finance sector took into consideration all points brought to its notice by the bank employees in their written replies to the questionnaires distributed to them and in hearings; the views of management in respect of these matters also received due attention. According to the Government, since neither workers nor employers in this sector have complained against decisions of the Wage Commission, the system is working well. The Committee notes from the 1990 Award (at page 6) the Wage Commission's comment that:

Almost all the employees' unions demanded that their right of collective bargaining must be restored. The demand is based to a certain extent on misconception. Their right to collective bargaining has not been affected. The only change brought about is that, instead of talking to the employers (managements) they are now talking to the Commission in a calm and peaceful atmosphere for their terms and conditions (of work). The Commission feels that the very purpose of setting up a high-powered independent Wage Commission periodically is to settle the differences for a reasonable period so that the institutions may carry on their work in peace. It, therefore, seems incongruous to think that in spite of the labours of the Commission and the time and money spent on it a state of confrontation should still be allowed to prevail in the institutions.

The Committee would recall that employees of banks and financial institutions, not being engaged in the administration of the State according to Article 6 of the Convention - even if this is a nationalised sector - should be accorded the right to bargain their terms and conditions of service directly with their employer without interference from outside bodies. Where machinery or specialised institutions are established to help arrive at bargained outcomes, they must be designed to facilitate voluntary bargaining between the two sides and leave them free to reach their own settlements (General Survey, 1983, paras. 301 and 304). As free and voluntary negotiation of conditions of employment is a fundamental aspect of freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to re-examine the provisions of the Ordinance affecting the rights of employees in the banking and financial sector. 2. With regard to restrictions on the right to organise and to bargain collectively for workers in export processing zones and employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, the Committee invites the Government to refer to its comments under Convention No. 87.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation.

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information that it supplied to the Conference Committee in June 1988. The Committee also notes the observations made by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions. The Committee recalls that in the past it has identified divergencies between the Convention and legislative provisions relating to the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), to wage-fixation in the banking and financial sector, and to the position of workers in export processing zones (EPZs). Wage-fixation in the banking and financial sector The Committee has, on several occasions, drawn attention to the fact that sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as amended empower the Government to constitute a wage commission to fix wage rates and determine all the other terms and conditions of service in banks and in any other sector that may be specified by a government notification, and that these provisions restrict the exercise of voluntary negotiation as established under Article 4. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, employees of banks and other financial institutions enjoy freedom of association and that in all these establishments the sole collective bargaining agent is determined by secret ballot. The bargaining agent is entitled to present to the employer a charter of demands relating to the employees' wages and conditions of service. These demands are then submitted to the wage commission which is presided over by a High Court Judge, and which gives the parties, namely the bargaining agent and the management, the opportunity to present their arguments. The Government states that on the last occasion that a Commission was established (1984) some 51 unions were invited to make submissions to the Commission before it reached its decision. The Committee notes that, in the opinion of the Government, the decisions of the Commission are arrived at having full regard to the process of collective bargaining. According to the Government, this is borne out by the fact: (i) that the social partners are given the opportunity to discuss wages and employment issues through the agency of the Commission; (ii) that on no occasion has any party to the process questioned the impartiality of the system; and (iii) that the Commission has never made an award which lacked the support of either workers or management. The Committee recalls that the principle of voluntary negotiation implies the establishment of procedures encouraging discussions between the parties with the aim of concluding agreements that are freely arrived at. In the Committee's opinion, if, in order to facilitate negotiation, bodies and procedures are established, their intervention should not result in restrictions on the scope of negotiation or the independence of the parties. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any future developments in this area - in particular, whether a further Commission has been established, the outcome of its deliberations, and the reactions of the parties to that outcome. Export Processing Zones With regard to restrictions upon the right to organise and to bargain collectively for workers in EPZs, the Committee invites the Government to refer to its comments under Convention No. 87, as follows: The Committee notes the Government's report for the period to 30 June 1989, but has not received its report for the period to 30 June 1990. The Committee also notes the comments of the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) in communications dated 21 December 1989 and 24 February 1990. The Government has not sent any observations on these comments to the Committee. In its 1989 observation, the Committee had referred to divergencies between the Convention and legislative provisions which deny certain workers the right to establish trade union organisations, restrict the right to strike, permit the supervision of trade union funds by the Registrar and limit the right of representation of minority unions. Trade union rights - Pakistan International Airlines Corporation In its report, the Government indicates that section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 had been amended so as to enable workers employed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) to take part in trade union activities under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Committee notes with interest that the Government has now taken measures to remove the ban on trade union membership and activities at PIAC to which the Committee had been drawing attention for several years. It also asks the Government to send it a copy of the relevant legislation, as promised in its report. Trade union rights - Senior public servants In its 1989 observation, and on many previous occasions, the Committee expressed its concern about the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and, through a direct request, had asked the Government to provide certain further information as to the number of workers affected by this ban and as to the nature and activities of the associations to which, according to the Government, such officials were entitled to belong. In its report the Government indicates that in 1986, 17,652 (9.39 per cent) out of a total of 187,925 federal public servants were classified as Grade 16 or above. It also indicates that the effect of this exclusion is to place senior public servants in the same position as managerial staff in the private sector. The Government has not, however, supplied the requested information as to the number, size and activities of the "associations" to which public servants of Grade 16 and above may belong. The Committee requests the Government to include this information in its next report. Trade union rights - Export processing zones In its 1989 observation, the Committee noted that on the basis of section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, the Government had entirely exempted all export processing zones from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, whilst section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982, deprived workers in such zones of the right to strike or to take other forms of industrial action. The Committee considered that these provisions are not consistent with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its report the Government indicates that it will give consideration to the possibility of removing these restrictions as part of its general policy of allowing full trade union activity in the country. It has not, however, supplied any subsequent information as to the outcome of its deliberations on this matter. In the circumstances, the Committee must call upon the Government to keep it informed as to the steps it proposes to take to remove these restrictions on trade union membership and activity which are clearly incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. Recourse to strikes For some years the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the fact that certain of the restrictions on recourse to strikes which are set out in sections 32 and 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance seem to interfere with the right to strike. The Committee notes that section 32(2) of the Ordinance enables the Government to prohibit any strike or lock-out where it has lasted for more than 30 days, or where the Government is satisfied that continuance of the strike or lock-out is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interest. Section 33(1) on the other hand enables the Government to prohibit any strike or lock-out, before or after its commencement, where the dispute is of "national importance" or involves "public utility services" within the meaning of the Schedule to the Ordinance. These restrictions appear to the Committee to go beyond what is necessary in order to maintain services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population. It must, therefore, urge the Government to ensure that these provisions are amended so as to bring them into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. Right of representation of minority unions On a number of occasions the Committee has noted that workers in minority unions cannot be represented by the union of their choice in relation to individual grievances, and has pointed out to the Government that this situation is not compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. The Government indicates that it knows of no case where a collective bargaining agent has refused to represent the interests of a member of a minority union - on the contrary, collective bargaining agents often give preference to the claims of members of minority unions with a view to encouraging them to switch allegiance. The Government does not, however, consider that it would be appropriate to permit minority unions to represent the individual interests of their members because to do so would be to jeopardise and destabilise the position of the collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes the views of the Government on this matter, but must reiterate that full conformity with the requirements of the Convention means that members of minority unions should have the right to be represented by their own union in relation to their individual claims if they so choose. Promotion of union activists as an anti-union tactic The Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) alleges that a number of foreign-owned companies in the banking and financial services sector have been pursuing a policy of "promoting" their employees so as to remove them from the category of "workman" in section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and placing them instead in the category of "employer". According to the PNFTU, these "promotions" are purely formal in character and are designed to weaken the position of trade unions by virtue of the fact that under the Ordinance "employers" and "workers" may not belong to the same union. The Committee has pointed out in the past that it is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention to deny managerial or supervisory employees the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers. This is, however, subject to two provisos: first, that they have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and, secondly, that the categories of managerial staff and employees in positions of confidence are not so broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity are weakened by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership (1983 General Survey, paragraph 131). In order to enable it to make an informed assessment of the compatibility of section 2 of the Ordinance with the requirements of the Convention, the Committee would ask the Government to provide an indication of the proportion of the workforce who are regarded as being "employers" within the terms of that section. It also asks the Government to provide information as to the number and size of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such persons, and to provide its observations on the comments of the PNFTU in relation to this matter. In view of the fact that the Committee has been commenting on many of these matters for many years, it expresses the firm hope that the Government will make every effort to take the measures which are necessary to give full effect to the Convention, and that it will do so in the near future.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future concerning the matters discussed above in order to give full effect to the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information that it supplied to the Conference Committee in June 1988. The Committee also notes the observations made by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions.

The Committee recalls that in the past it has identified divergencies between the Convention and legislative provisions relating to the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), to wage fixation in the banking and financial sector, and to the position of workers in export processing zones (EPZs).

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation

The Committee notes that section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 denies employees of PIAC the right to form or join trade unions, or to exercise the other rights which are embodied in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

The Committee notes, for example, that section 10(2) of the 1956 Act enables PIAC to dismiss any of its employees without giving any reason, without the employees having the right to appeal to a court and with only a very limited right to be heard. This provision gives the employer full latitude to dismiss an employee for any reason whatosever, and particularly for reasons that may be connected with trade union activities. The Committee points out that by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination (paragraph 1), and more particularly in respect of dismissals by reason of union membership or participation in union activities (paragraph 2, subparagraph (b)). The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in order to give effect to the provisions concerning the protection of the right to organise, employees of the PIAC should in the first place be allowed, in the same way as any other worker, to participate in trade union activities (see its comments in this respect under Convention No. 87) and secondly to enjoy adequate protection against any discriminatory act respecting recruitment or employment. The Committee emphasises that, even if they are considered as public servants, employees of the PIAC must enjoy the protection of the Convention since they are not public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6).

Wage-fixation in the banking and financial sector

The Committee has, on several occasions, drawn attention to the fact that sections 38A to 38I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as amended empower the Government to constitute a wage commission to fix wage rates and determine all the other terms and conditions of service in banks and in any other sector that may be specified by a government notification, and that these provisions restrict the exercise of voluntary negotiation as established under Article 4.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, employees of banks and other financial institutions enjoy freedom of association and that in all these establishments the sole collective bargaining agent is determined by secret ballot. The bargaining agent is entitled to present to the employer a charter of demands relating to the employees' wages and conditions of service. These demands are then submitted to the wage commission which is presided over by a High Court Judge, and which gives the parties, namely the bargaining agent and the management, the opportunity to present their arguments. The Government states that on the last occasion that a Commission was established (1984) some 51 unions were invited to make submissions to the Commission before it reached its decision.

The Committee notes that, in the opinion of the Government, the decisions of the Commission are arrived at having full regard to the process of collective bargaining. According to the Government, this is borne out by the fact: (i) that the social partners are given the opportunity to discuss wages and employment issues through the agency of the Commission; (ii) that on no occasion has any party to the process questioned the impartiality of the system, and (iii) that the Commission has never made an award which lacked the support of either workers or management.

The Committee recalls that the principle of voluntary negotiation implies the establishment of procedures encouraging discussions between the parties with the aim of concluding agreements that are freely arrived at. In the Committee's opinion, if, in order to facilitate negotiation, bodies and procedures are established, their intervention should not result in restrictions on the scope of negotiation or the independence of the parties. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any future developments in this area - in particular, whether a further Commission has been established, the outcome of its deliberations, and the reactions of the parties to that outcome.

Export Processing Zones

With regard to restrictions upon the right to organise and to bargain collectively for workers in EPZs, the Committee invites the Government to refer to its comments under Convention No. 87.

The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future concerning the matters discussed above in order to give full effect to the requirements of the Convention.