House panel for changes in Women's Bill

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has criticized the draft Bill for Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace, saying it leaves out domestic workers, who comprise 30 per cent of the women workforce in the country.

It has sought a redefinition of the word ‘workplace’ as any place where an aggrieved woman works or visits as part of her work, including vehicles in which she travels as part of her work. Also, it wants sexual harassment to include SMS and graphic or electronic devices.

The committee has also criticized the Bill for being vague about the employer’s liability in case of a casual/contract worker. It says the responsibilities of the principal employer as well as the head of the workplace should be specified in clear terms if the Bill is to help the women get justice.

It rejected the ministry’s justification for covering casual workers who worked at different workplaces, but were normally under the control of another employer. It was far fetched to expect that the principle employer of such a casual worker, who may be a contractor and not directly responsible, would take a suo motu action of filing a case under IPC against the accused person, the panel says.

The committee suggests the word employee, defined by the draft Bill as “a person employed at a workplace for any work on regular, temporary, ad hoc or daily wage basis, either directly or through an agent, including a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, for remuneration or not, or working on a voluntary basis or otherwise, whether the terms of employment are express or implied and includes a co worker , a contract worker, probationer, trainee, apprentice, or called by any other such name, but does not include domestic worker working at home” should have the following added to it: “for any third party encountered in the course of work”.

The committee also seeks changes in the definition of employer, asking for clarity on the roles of contractors vis-a-vis the employees’ workplace. It says the Bill should clarify how the contractor should go about a complaint. Noting that the Bill does not clarify the role of an organisation’s head in the private sector, clearly indicating that no liability would fall on him/her, it calls for the provision to be modified.