Gender and Social
Protection: Brief Overview
India’s constitutional
obligations on social security is reflected in the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens and the Directive Principles require the State
Policies to focus attention on these aspects. In terms of measures undertaken
by the State and the Society in preventing, reducing and eliminating economic
and social vulnerabilities and eliminating poverty and deprivation, India’s
achievement over its 70 years of Independence is appalling. One estimate of the
adverse sex ratio of females to males suggests that the country has 63 million
“missing” women and about 21 million “unwanted” girls.
The Government of
India’s Economic Survey[i]
tries to justify the poor status of women and social protection measures by
alluding to the concept of “development time” and “chronological time.” It
therefore suggests that since India is way far behind in development time,
Gender indexes such as the Global Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum
(WEF) or the Gender Inequality Index (GII) of the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) which rank countries in chronological time is the cause for the
poor statistics. However, the reality is that while for political reasons
several Schemes are launched, the investments are too little and spread too
thin and the implementation of the schemes lackadaisical to make any tangible
difference to the really poor. The fact that Rwanda ranks 4th, Nicaragua 6th,
Slovenia 7th and Philippines 10th completely negates the
contention of the Government and it an important question as to why and how
have these countries managed to do so well despite having Gross Domestic
Products which are far less than ours, economies which are perhaps not as
vibrant as the Indian economy and diversity issues similar to those we have in
India[ii].
The pink colour to the year’s economic survey emphasising government’s concern
seems more promotional and face-saving rather than admit to the realities on the
ground.
The total number of female
workers in India is 149.8 million and female workers in rural and urban areas
are 121.8 and 28.0 million respectively. Out of total 149.8 million female
workers, 35.9 million females are working as cultivators and another 61.5
million are agricultural labourers. Of the remaining female workers, 8.5
million are in household Industry and 43.7 million are classified as other
workers. There is a wide range of activities covered under other workers
including those in mining, forestry etc.
The work participation rate for
women declined over the last census decade and was 25.51 percent in 2011 as
compared to 25.63 per cent in 2001 indicating a deteriorating situation for
women to obtain gainful employment. The work participation rate for women in
rural areas is 30.02 per cent as compared to 15.44 per cent in the urban areas[iii].
|
Social Sector Expenditure,
Union Government
|
||
|
Year
|
Amount
In Million INR
|
Percentage of Total
|
|
2012-13
|
1247250
|
8.87
|
|
2013-14
|
1424260
|
9.12
|
|
2014-15
|
686630
|
4.41
|
|
2015-16
|
1006820
|
5.68
|
|
2016-17
|
1160230
|
6.01
|
|
Accounts
of the Union Government, No. 44 of 2017 (Financial Audit), CAG
|
||
In terms of
expenditure on social services the Union Government accounts expenditure which,
in turn, are grouped into three sectors, namely General Services, Social
Services and Economic Services. In relation to the total expenditure, General
Services showed an increase from 47.42 per cent in 2012-13 to 53.07 per
cent in 2016-17 while expenditure on Economic Services has remained between
40 to 44 per cent during the same period. In Social Services, the expenditure share remained below 10 per cent for the period of 2012-13 to
2016-17.
It is very clear that a dramatic
reduction on expenditure on social services, almost cutting it to less than
half-the-previous year is noticed when there was a change in the Government and
even until this year they have not been restored back to the 2012-13 levels.
The total revenue expenditure,
which excludes any capital investments, includes expenditure on Education,
Sports, Art and Culture, Health and Family Welfare, Water Supply and
Sanitation, Housing, Urban Development; Welfare of SCs, STs and OBCs, Labour
and Labour Welfare, Social Security and Welfare and Nutrition and Relief for
Natural Calamities.
The Revenue Expenditures are
required to ensure that the current services are operational and is able to pay
for the staff and regular expenditures that would be required for these
purposes. However one sees a dramatic reduction on assumption of power by this
Government and therefore the reach to the poorer sections of the community.
|
Revenue Expenditure in Social
Sector (In Million INR)
|
||||||
|
Year
|
Education, Sports, Arts and Culture
|
Water Supply, Sanitation, Urban Development and Housing
|
Health and Family Welfare
|
Welfare of SC, ST, OBC and Minorities
|
Others
|
Total
|
|
2012-13
|
627410
|
224600
|
195030
|
3480
|
116600
|
1167120
|
|
2013-14
|
684800
|
268240
|
223580
|
6060
|
157130
|
1339810
|
|
2014-15
|
306360
|
18990
|
111420
|
15640
|
141960
|
594370
|
|
2015-16
|
330380
|
46540
|
132020
|
33770
|
341730
|
884440
|
|
2016-17
|
378800
|
132910
|
169430
|
25840
|
265120
|
972100
|
|
Accounts of the Union Government, No. 44 of
2017 (Financial Audit), CAG
|
||||||
Thus we find the cumulative expenditure in the last two
years of the previous government was higher than the three succeeding years of
the present government.
Gender Budget
The first Gender Budget Statement
appeared in the Union Budget 2005-06 in keeping with the other commonwealth
countries which had by then introduced this concept. Since then ten states in India have also
introduced gender budgeting. However, there is no standardised nomenclature for
the various schemes has made it difficult to access and assess the data.
Gender budgeting was introduced
in 2005-06. Gender Budget of the Union Government discloses expenditure
proposed to be incurred within the overall budget on schemes which are designed
to benefit women fully or partially. Schemes relating to gender budget were
bifurcated in two categories viz. Part-A, schemes in which 100 per cent budget
provisions were related to women and Part-B, schemes in which at least 30 per
cent of budget provisions were related to women.
The allocations and the
utilisation when analysed (Budget Estimates versus Revised Estimates) indicate
that there was variation ranging from-16.52 per cent to 2.51 per cent
in RE as compared to BE during 2012-13 to 2016-17 under the schemes
designed to benefit women. In BE 2016-17, 27 Ministries/Departments/ Union
Territory Governments have made allocations for gender budget. During 2012-13 to 2014-15, expenditure at
RE stage was less than that of BE. However, RE was higher compared with BE
during 2015-16 and 2016-17.
In RE stage in Part A scheme amounting
to INR 211791 Million for the year
2016-17, Rs 16,000 crore (76 per cent) was pertaining to only one
scheme, i.e. Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana, against which the actual expenditure
was Rs 16,071 crore, which is an housing scheme and not wholly focussed on
women. It is also pertinent to note that over 80 Schemes in Part A, the
allocations were less than INR 10 million lending credit to the criticism that
many schemes have been launched for political reasons and to provide a
psychological effect rather than actual budgets to address the needs of women.
Poor Utilisation of Special Fund for Women’s Security
Months after the gang-rape of a
23-year-old physiotherapy student which triggered outrage across India and led
to tougher laws against rape and sexual harassment in the Budget of 2013-14 the
Union Government announced the formation of a new fund for the safety, security
and welfare of women with and initial corpus of INR 1000 Million. Currently the corpus has over INR 31000. The
fund which was established with such objectives lies unutilised and reflects
the clear lack of seriousness of the State. Only a small proportion has been
set apart for compensation of victims which amount to INR 2000 Million. The
victims availing compensation under the scheme is nowhere close to the
incidents of rape being reported every year. As per government data, close
to 39000 case of rape were reported across the country in 2016. Even
if we were to go with the conviction rate of around 25%, we are talking about
thousands of victims each year.
Gender – Wage Gap
|
Sector
|
Average Gender Pay Gap
|
|
Manufacturing
|
29.9%
|
|
IT
|
38.2%
|
|
Construction and Technical
Consultancy
|
18.1%
|
|
Financial Services,
Banking and Insurance
|
21.5%
|
|
Education and Research
|
14.7%*
|
|
Healthcare, Caring Services
and Social Work
|
22.6%
|
|
Transport, Logistics, and
Communications
|
7.7%
|
|
Legal and Market
Consultancy and Business Activities
|
27.5%
|
|
* The only industry where
gender pay gap decreased to -3.4% from 2015- 2016, however, the average from
2014-2016 remains at 14.7%.Source: Monster Salary Index (MSI)
|
|
The gap in male-female wages is
the lowest in regular service activities, where female workers get almost 80
percent of the male wages. However, the gap is higher in casual manufacturing
activities where female wages are only approximately 59 percent. It is
important to highlight this aspect as sectors which have more employed female
workers, such as the casual manufacturing activities, the wage gap is wider and
for those activities where the presence of female workers is less, such as
regular high skilled economic and financial service sectors, the gap is
narrower. What this implies is that with higher levels of education and
employability, male-female wage differences tend to decline.
India enacted an Equal
Remuneration Act as early as 1976. The legislative measures are, no doubt,
intend to ensure protection of women workers in particular but in actual
practice the enforcement of the provisions of the Act have worked against the
interest of a large numbers of female workers. The rules framed do not have any penal
provisions and only allows for claims. More recently the National Commission on
Women[iv]
reviewed the functioning of the law and suggested the following amendments
which have been yet to be taken up by the Government;
Section 5 : Under Section 5 women
are prohibited or restricted by law to take up certain employment or to take up
the employment during particular hours of the day. It is high time that the
list of the
category of the work, wherein
women are prohibited or restricted by law from taking the work is pruned down,
unless the same is hazardous and threatens the life and limp of the women.
Today, the women are giving effective competition to men in different sphere of
activity and has proven themselves. It the restrictions are not removed or
significantly curtailed, then they are likely to be challenged on the ground of
discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Section 7 : Section 7
relates to the officer manning the adjudicatory body. It is the first pint of
contact for the aggrieved party. The Act provides for a Labour Officer to hear
the complaint relating to contravention of any provisions of the Act of
non-payment of equal wages. Since the complaints primarily emanates from Women
section of the employees it is of utmost important that the adjudicatory
authority should provide assurance and should inspire confidence of aggrieved
party. For this reason, the Labour Officer who has been empowered under this
Section should be a women with background of Labour practices.
The power of filing complaint
should not be confined only to the aggrieved party. It has to be broad based on
any information relating to contravention of the Act must be entertained. For
this reason, two changes are necessary under Section 7. Firstly, if any person
including voluntary organisation reports of any contravention of provisions of
the Act, the same should be treated as a complaint and the adjudicatory
authority should dispose of the same as per law. Secondly, if the Labour
Officer or whosoever, is the adjudicatory authority get some information or
knowledge about any practice by the employer which is in contravention of the
Act, then it should have power of registration of complaint upon its own
knowledge and information. These amendments are also necessary as the employees
are likely to be reluctant to lodge any complain against their present
employer, least they face the wrath of employer.
Section 10 :
Providing a penal clause against the person who does not comply with the order
made by the officer under Section 7 (1).
Section 15 : Section
15 deals with special benefits given to the women. It is necessary that the
explanation be incorporated in the Section, wherein it should be provided that
the special treatment should never be detrimental to the interest of the women.
One of the setbacks on equal remuneration
is highlighted in a recent judgement in which Supreme Court remanded the
case of Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat vs Indian Oil Corporation for a
fresh decision by the High Court of Gujarat. The original decision under
appeal, Indian Oil Corporation vs Chief Labour Commissioner – raised
a crucial question of the interplay between the constitutional
principle of equal pay for equal work, and the statutory guarantee
contained in Rule 25(2)(v) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Rules of 1971, framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition Act) of 1970[v].
Before the High Court of Gujarat,
the issue, briefly, was whether various contract labourers, including cooks,
sweepers, and gardeners, who were working in the premises of the Indian Oil
Corporation, were entitled to equal wages, on parity with permanent employees.
The Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat –
the representative union of the workmen – made their first reference to the
Labour Commissioner on this issue in 1994. After a few rounds of litigation, in
1992, the Labour Commissioner found that the work done by the contract
labourers, and the permanent employees, was “same or similar”, and
consequently, Rule 25(2)(v) of the CLRA Rules was applicable. This order was
challenged, and eventually, in 2013, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court
issued notice, observing that the Commissioner was wrong in taking
into account only the nature of work:
“… if only apparent work is to
be seen without ignoring the quality and capability of the person concerned,
based on his qualification, experience, etc., such would frustrate the basic
requirement. The essential purpose of Rule 25 is to ensure that there is no
exploitation by the principal employer by engaging person through contract
labourer, but that does not mean that the other requirements of qualification,
experience, quality of work, nature of the work, responsibility and the
accountability for the work are to be done away.”
Subsequently, on 8th May 2014,
the High Court set aside the order of the Labour Commissioner, holding that the
source, mode of recruitment/appointment, nature of work, value judgment,
responsibility etc. – and not only similarity in designation or quantum of work
– was relevant for equating two sets of employees.
In this case, the regular employees were
recruited through a written examination, and were required to have certain
qualifications, which the contract labourers didn’t. Consequently, there was no
obligation of equal pay. It was against this judgment that the labour union
approached the Supreme Court, and the case – as observed above – has now been
remanded on the question of the status of the contract labourers.
Allocations for Weaker Sections
Government of India started to
make separate allocations for the development of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and
Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the financial year 2011-12 with instructions to the
not to re-appropriate the provisions. Although there was no major variation at
RE stage in all the schemes put together, it was noticed that in 22 schemes for
SCs and 19 schemes for STs, the amount was reduced ranging from 50 to 100 per
cent at RE stage in contravention of instructions.
Further, out of total 256 and 261 schemes for
welfare of SCs and STs, there were no budget allocation in 36 and 42
sub-schemes respectively at BE stage during 2016-17.
Draft Social Security
Code 2018
The draft Social Security Code[vi]
is the newest intervention the Government has initiated. The problem statement
as identified by the Government is that;
1) 
Biggest lacuna is
that the current system leaves almost 90 percent out of the folds of any social
security. Unorganized sector workers are largely excluded.
Biggest lacuna is
that the current system leaves almost 90 percent out of the folds of any social
security. Unorganized sector workers are largely excluded.
2) The
schemes have very limited outreach.
3) There
is large scale fragmentation: there are multiplicity of laws, policies, schemes
and agencies.
4) The
existing wage and number thresholds creates perverse incentives for the
employers to shy away from joining the system thus resulting in artificial
exclusions and distortions in the labour market
While the objectives of universal
coverage is stated as prime the draft code has several lacunae which will
eventually mean a more cumbersome processes for the worker while it will ease
compliance for the employer. The draft code claims of extensive participation,
for instance in its preface it states, “A
first draft of Labour Code on Social Security was published and put in the
public domain on 16th March 2017, for comments of stakeholders. A number of
workshops and discussions were held with various stakeholders, such as
Employers’ organisations, Worker’s organisations, State Governments, NGOs,
representative of unorganized workers law practitioners etc. We were very
encouraged with the feed-back and response from all the stakeholders. We
received extensive comments on various provisions of the draft code, which ran
into almost 3000 pages. In addition, we also received technical inputs from the
International Labour Organisation (ILO). It was an arduous task in going
through all the inputs and refining the draft of the Code accordingly.
As conceded by the latest version, this code is yet to
undergo a thorough scrutiny of a legal drafting which will be done after
completing the tripartite and other consultations and hence may not in the
final text reflect the sentiments of the various stakeholders.
The Labour Code on
Social Security is an attempt to simplify, rationalize and consolidate the
hitherto fragmented laws to make them less complex for easier comprehension
implementation and enforcement. Basic core principles that have been
incorporated are - (Progressive) Universalization to entire workforce;
Integration of fragmented schemes; Decentralization of administration; Rights
based approach and Single window compliance.
The Code aims at universalization
of Social Security and as such the definition of employee covers all kinds of
employment including a part time worker, casual worker fixed term worker, piece
rate/commission rated worker, informal worker home-based worker, domestic
worker and seasonal worker. The
Universalization, however does not mean that all the workers proposed for
coverage under the code would be covered from Day 1, as the code provides the
flexibility of progressive extension of coverage. Thus the meaning of
universal coverage has been undermined in its definition itself by creating
exclusions from the beginning. The code also enables Union Government to
centralise the finances by enabling any current surplus in a Fund, is to be
transferred by the State Boards to the Central Board for professional
management of investment of the Scheme Funds. This is to ensure that economies
of scale may be utilized to the maximum possible extent and good return could
be fetched on the investment. The Central Board has been provided the
responsibility to manage the investment of the Funds mentioned above on behalf
of the States in accordance with the investment pattern notified by the Central
Government. Thus it seems a mechanism for finding investible surpluses from
what is primarily meant to meet the crying needs of the workers. The code
proposes for confiscation of unclaimed amounts and credit of the EFPO to
National Stabilization Fund, if no claimant could be found even after inviting
claims and objections in respect of such amounts thus enabling itself to use
money in the manner it decides.
It further envisages that like
the levy of Building and Construction Cess, on all construction works above a
certain threshold the provision of Cess has been kept only as an alternate
mechanism to collect contributions (of employers / employees). The Government
does not intend to levy cess on any sector, as the normal Employer’s and
Employee Contribution levied is expected to be sufficient to meet the Social
Security requirement. However, it is understood that certain sectors are very
prone to informality, due to which number of employees are not declared by the
employers, leading to their exclusions from social security. In order to handle
such sectors, the powers to levy cess has been kept, so that in sectors where
employers are escaping their obligations, the concerned workers can be
protected by levy of cess, and providing their contribution from this collection
of cess. Thus the code concedes that the same issues which have been plaguing
the system will perhaps continue and that the consolidation of all the funds so
far collected to be used for specific category of workers will be bundled into
a large fund of the State.
The obligation to register a
worker falls on the employer, except for own-account worker, who needs to
register himself. The Draft code prescribes penalties for employing an
unregistered worker beyond a specified period. However, if the employer fails
to register the worker within the specified time period, the worker has been
provided with the facility of registering himself under the provisions of the
code. The code thus puts the onus on the worker and requires all (active)
workers to be registered under the Universal Registration system which will be
based on the now controversial Universal Identification Scheme (Aadhar) which
is contested vehemently in the Supreme Court on issues of privacy. The
protocols will be decided by the Central Board – for universal applicability
and portability of registration but the actual registration in the field is
expected to be performed by Local Bodies (i.e. Gram Panchayats / Municipal
bodies). The State Boards which will have oversight of the process is enabled
by the code to have PPP arrangements to provide facilitation centres for
registration services thus privatising the role of the State.
The funding of social security
under the Code is a combination of Employer / employee funded and Taxpayer
funded thus providing leeway to the employers and placing the burden on common
people. The code expects to scientifically classify and identify such workers
who belong to poorest socio-economic category for whom Code envisages the
Social Security be taxpayer funded. Workers, at the time of registration are
expected to provide data about their socio-economic parameters and based on
which, the categorization will be automatically determined.
A three tier Social Security Administration Structure proposed with
tripartite representation in all these bodies drawing representatives of
workers, employers and Government.
(a) National Social Security Council headed by the Prime Minister to
be the Apex Social Security Organization in the Country for overall regulation
and monitoring;
(b) Central Board of Social Security at Union level and
(c) State Board(s) of Social Security at State/UT level for
implementation of the Social Security framework.
In addition functions have been prescribed for local bodies
(panchayats / urban local bodies) of registrations and facilitation.
The new social security structure
created through this code will replace the entire present setup which means
that EPFO and ESIC will cease to exist in the present forms. However, they
would cease in only those states where the new set up has been notified and
would continue as such in the remaining areas.
Thus it will cause more
confusions for workers in terms of even the existing workers who are covered
under those schemes.
Nine types of social security
described in the Convention in the ILO Convention 102 is aimed by this code.
Social Security Fund in each State is to provide for schemes such as Pension,
Sickness Benefit, Maternity Benefit, Disablement Benefit, Invalidity Benefit,
Dependent’s benefit, Medical Benefit, Group Insurance Benefit, Provident Fund,
Unemployment Benefit and International worker’s pension benefit. However,
it may not be taken that code proposes to provide each of these to every worker
from the day 1. We will have to work in a phased manner given our budgetary
constraints. There is no prescribed time-table for universal coverage.
Even though the code claims that
there is no exception, but Schedule – I has been provided to specify class of
workers / establishments that are excluded from certain provisions of the Code.
This exclusion will be applicable only to such workers who can avail normal /
regular security available to government servants (e.g. workers on whom CCS
Pension Rules apply). Further, This Schedule – I can also be used for gradual
phase-wise implementation of the Code. For Employers who can provide PF and
Gratuity system managed by their own, there are provisions for permission for
Alternate Coverage Mechanism.
The code as it exists also has
the threat of large scale privatisation of the Social Security Systems through
the provision for licensing of Intermediate Agencies in the fields of Fund
Management, Point of Presence, Service delivery, Benefit disbursement, Record
keeping and Facilitation for enabling PPP system in administering social
security. These agencies are to be agents of the Board to deliver certain services
without any accountability as the ultimate liability and responsibility of
providing the services and benefits remains that of the Boards.
The existing situation is dismal
and the emerging scenario on Social Security in India portends greater threat.
Unless concerted efforts by the State and the Society are not forthcoming and
implementation issues are not ironed out, the situation of workers in more
vulnerable sectors such as Mining, Forestry and Household work would be far
more difficult to address and redress.
[i] http://mofapp.nic.in:8080/economicsurvey/
[ii] https://feminisminindia.com/2017/11/08/global-gender-gap-report-2017/
[iii]
Census of India, 2011
[iv] http://ncw.nic.in/frmReportLaws23.aspx#2
[v] https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/equal-pay-for-equal-work-statute-and-constitution/
[vi] https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/Letter_of_Social_Security_Code_2018.pdf
