Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2004, Publicación: 93ª reunión CIT (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of any rules or regulations concerning prison labour issued under Act No. 48 of 1991 relating to prisons, if and when such rules or regulations are adopted.

Freedom of workers to terminate employment

1. The Committee previously noted that section 35(2) of the Labour Code (Act No. 5 of 1995) lays down an exhaustive list of cases where a worker may unilaterally terminate his contract of employment without prior written notice, and section 36 of the Code lays down an exhaustive list of cases where either party to a contract of employment may terminate it with notice. The Committee asked the Government to clarify whether a worker has right to terminate his contract of employment at his own request without indicating any specific reason, simply by means of notice of reasonable length.

The Government reiterates that a worker has the right to terminate employment upon his/her request, provided that the request is submitted at least one month prior to the date of resignation. The Committee previously noted the Government’s intention to add a legal text to the Labour Code in this regard when it amends it. It noted the Government’s indication that a tripartite workshop to discuss a draft amendment to the Labour Code was held in December 2001-January 2002 with the participation of an ILO expert, and a new workshop was envisaged in the beginning of 2003. The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary amendment to the Labour Code will be made in the near future in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point and requests the Government to supply a copy of the amendment, as soon as it is adopted.

2. The Committee previously noted that section 95 of Act No. 67 of 1991 concerning military service stipulates that the Minister may accept the resignation of an officer provided that the reason for his resignation is beyond his control and he spent eight years in effective service. Section 96 of the Act lays down similar provisions for the resignation of non-commissioned officers, which may be accepted only if requested for reasons beyond their control (and after seven years of effective service). The Committee referred to the explanations given in paragraphs 68 and 72 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that career military servicemen cannot be denied the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention on this point. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application of the above sections 95 and 96 in practice, indicating in particular, for recent years, the number of applications for resignation received, approved and denied, and the reasons for any denial.

Article 25 of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested information on measures taken or envisaged to give effect in national law and practice to this Article of the Convention, which requires each ratifying State to make the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour punishable as a penal offence and to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and strictly enforced. The Committee noted the Government’s explanations concerning sections 246 (unlawful detention or deprivation of liberty) and 248 (buying, selling or disposing of any person in any way or trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation) of Law No. 12 of 1994 on crimes and penalties. It would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on the application of sections 246 and 248 in practice, in the circumstances falling within the scope of Article 25 of the Convention, indicating the penalties imposed and including copies of any relevant court decisions.